Paper ID #28387

Assessing the Effects of Master Slave Terminology on Inclusivity inEngineering Education

Dr. Andrew Danowitz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Andrew Danowitz received his PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 2014, andis currently an Assistant Professor of Computer Engineering at California Polytechnic State Universityin San Luis Obispo. His engineering education interests include student mental health, retention, andmotivation.

Amman Fasil Asfaw, California State Polytechnic University - San Luis Obispo

Amman is a 4th year electrical engineering student studying at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo striving to createa legacy of respect, integrity, and commitment through servant leadership.

Dr. Bridget Benson, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Bridget Benson received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering at California Polytechnic StateUniversity San Luis Obipso in 2005, a Master’s degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering at theUniversity of California Santa Barbara in 2007 and a PhD degree in the Computer Science and Engi-neering at the University of California San Diego in 2010. She is currently an Associate Professor inthe Electrical Engineering Department at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obipso. Herresearch interests span engineering education, embedded systems, and ecological monitoring.

Dr. Paul Hummel, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Paul Hummel is a lecturer in the Electrical Engineering department at California Polytechnic State Uni-versity. He has a BS in Engineering with a Computer concentration from LeTourneau University and aPhD in Engineering with an emphasis on Microelectronics from Louisiana Tech University. His currentactivities focus on project based learning and online student assessment.

Dr. K. Clay McKell, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Clay McKell earned his B.S. degree, summa cum laude, in mechanical engineering from UCLA in 2006.He earned his M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from UCLA in 2007. He earned his Ph.D. inelectrical engineering from the University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2018. He currently serves as a lecturerin the Electrical Engineering Department at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.His research interests include distributed control of multi-agent networks, applications of game theory tosolve decentralized optimal decision-making, as well as STEM education practices that foster diversityand equity.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

Assessing the Effects of Master-Slave Terminology on Inclusivity in Engineering Education

Abstract As engineering programs strive to recruit and retain increasingly diverse student bodies, they often struggle to create an environment where students from historically excluded identities can thrive. While many universities have implemented interventions, training programs, and other mechanisms to reduce micro-aggressions and foster the creation of a more welcoming environment, to our knowledge, little research has been conducted on how common technical jargon of engineering can influence feelings of inclusion and acceptance among a diverse engineering student population. This paper reports specifically on student reactions to the “master-slave” terminology in the classroom, and the self-reported impacts of these terms on students’ sense of community and belonging in engineering education. We find that 42% of students surveyed either agree or strongly agree that use of master-slave terminology is problematic, including 100% of Female and 100% of African American students, and that the use of the terminology may create conditions to evoke Stereotype Threat. Introduction

A key concern for improving the graduation rates of engineering students from historically excluded backgrounds is the high attrition levels that these students face during the course of their study. Prior work shows that attrition at the collegiate level is the leading cause of low STEM graduation rates for historically excluded groups [1]. A specific study conducted at Brown University found the undergraduate retention rate for underrepresented students in STEM concentrations to be 56 percent, while the overall retention rate in STEM fields was 64 percent [2].

In light of this retention gap, significant research has been conducted to identify the root causes for so many students from historically marginalized groups leaving engineering programs. Frameworks like Stereotype Threat help explain academic achievement gaps [3], while work in Microaggressions [3]–[6] and Implicit Bias [7] have drawn attention to some of the many ways that campuses that espouse tolerance still create climates that are deeply unwelcoming to members of historically excluded groups [8], [9]. It is the understanding of these authors that much of this research has focused on how the current learning environment leads to disparate outcomes for diverse groups of students. This study takes a different approach by looking specifically at engineering technical jargon as a possible source of exclusion for historically excluded groups.

This work attempts to add to the body of knowledge by exploring how and whether the technical jargon of engineering disciplines contribute to a lack of inclusivity on college campuses. Although there are many examples of engineering jargon that can be considered problematic, to focus this study, we specifically analyze students’ attitudes about the “master-slave” terminology used to describe systems. While not comprehensive, the authors

believe that this term is the best example of terminology that some students may find problematic. Since previous research has indicated that simply ridding classrooms of problematic terminology may promote Color-Blind Racism [10], [11], we ask students to suggest alternatives to the “master-slave” terminology for use in the classroom. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Background discusses previous work both in problematic technical jargon and the effects of language in the classroom on Stereotype Threat, Methods describes our survey instrument in detail, and Results explores the papers findings. Background Eglash provides a historical context and discussion of the use of “master-slave”, however, his analysis of its effects on engineering students and practitioners is limited to a sample of four individuals [10]. Even then, there is no clear recommendation on whether and how the terms should continue to be used or whether they should be retired. For electrical and computing systems, at least, “master-slave” is a poor analogy for the actual relationships between devices in a system [10], [12], making the term’s use educationally questionable. On the other hand, the authors’ experience has shown that the “master-slave” terminology is so prolific that even if it is not introduced in the classroom by an instructor, students will pick it up from technical reference manuals, work experiences, and other source materials. Additionally, “master-slave” is not the only potentially problematic jargon used in engineering. Terms like “whitelist/blacklist” have been labelled as problematic [13], while individuals have confided in this work’s authors that the use of gendered jargon like “male/female” to describe component interfaces in engineering causes them discomfort. For this paper, however, the focus is limited to the effects of “master-slave” on students. The primary fear with use of any problematic terminology in the classroom is that it will induce Stereotype Threat in students from different backgrounds. While initial work on Stereotype Threat focused on explicit comparisons between racial or ethnic groups on a test [3]–[6], subsequent work has shown that discriminatory behavior in the classroom (sexist behavior in the case of this study) can be enough to create disparate academic results between students [14]. While some may argue that the jargon discussed here is not overtly exclusionary, work in various domains has shown that even if language incidentally reminds someone of their membership in a historically excluded group, it can lead to negative performance results for those individuals [15]. Methods This section describes the design of our survey instrument. We use a Likert scale [16] to assess the respondent’s familiarity with the term “master-slave,” whether they have ever considered the

term’s potential impacts on their classmates, and whether the term makes them feel personally uncomfortable. Depending on their response to the last question, the survey’s logic sends respondents to another set of questions about the term. If a respondent agrees, strongly agrees, or is neutral that “master-slave” makes them feel uncomfortable, the survey asks the questions shown in Table 1. The questions address Stereotype Threat by asking respondents if the jargon reminds them of being part of a historically marginalized group. They also attempt to determine how the use of the terms affect the sense of inclusivity. Finally, the questions ask if students would prefer the problematic terminology be replaced in the classroom, and, if so, what terminology they would like used instead.

Question Type

Use of the term reminds me I’m part of a historically excluded group Likert agreement

Use of this term makes me feel like an outsider in the classroom Likert agreement

Use of this term makes me feel historical guilt Likert agreement

I'm afraid of how my classmates might feel about this term Likert agreement

Is there an alternative terminology you propose to replace Master-Slave Short answer

Do you believe this terminology should be replaced in the classroom? Please explain.

Long answer

Table 1: Questions asked of respondents if they answer “Agree”, “Strongly agree”, or “Neutral” to whether a piece of jargon makes them feel uncomfortable.

Questions Type

I would be surprised if a fellow student mentioned discomfort with this term

Likert agreement

I would feel empathetic towards a classmate who finds this term problematic

Likert agreement

I would be accepting of using an alternate phrase if a classmate expressed discomfort with the use of this term

Likert agreement

Do you believe this terminology should be replaced in the classroom? Please explain.

Long answer

Table 2: Questions asked of respondents if they answer “Disagree”, or “Strongly disagree” to whether a piece of jargon makes them feel uncomfortable.

For students who are not made uncomfortable by the use of a term, we ask the questions shown in Table 2. With these questions, we wanted to capture the viewpoints of students from historically excluded groups who do not find the jargon problematic. We also wanted to capture whether students who are not offended by certain pieces of terminology are empathetic towards classmates who are uncomfortable. We are also interested in what sorts of objections might be raised by students if the survey results indicate that a change in terminology might be appropriate. Finally, we asked the demographic questions shown in Table 3. We included the demographic questions at the end of the survey to avoid priming students to think about their identity before engaging with the jargon.

Question

What gender do you identify as

What is your race

What is your ethnicity

Are you the first person in your immediate family to attend college?

Table 3: Demographics questions for respondents. These questions were asked at the end of the survey to avoid introducing Stereotype Threat. Results The survey instrument was distributed to students in California Polytechnic (Cal Poly) State University’s Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Computer Science programs during the Fall term 2019. A total of 52 students responded. The demographics of the respondents are shown in Tables 4–6. Per IRB requirements, we did not require a response for any question. Therefore, the number of respondents varies per item. The respondent population, in line with the student population at Cal Poly, is largely white and male. While these demographics are not ideal for collecting diverse opinions on potentially problematic terminology, these numbers are also somewhat representative of the overall makeup of many electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science programs and should be valuable in measuring student sentiment as it exists overall. The overall results for questions about the “master-slave” jargon is shown in Fig. 1. The vast majority of respondents (86%) strongly agree or agree that they are familiar with the term, and

only 27% of respondents strongly agree or agree that they have never considered the impact that this term may have on their classmates. Finally, 42% of respondents strongly agree or agree that the terminology makes them feel uncomfortable. The breakdown of responses by respondent demographic group is shown in Fig. 2. Interestingly 100% of women, including women who identify racially and ethnically with historically privileged groups, reported that “master-slave” terminology made them uncomfortable Only the students who agreed, strongly agreed, or responded with “neutral” to whether “master-slave” makes them feel uncomfortable were asked the follow-on questions from Table 1 (the students who disagreed that the terminology made them feel uncomfortable had a different set of follow-up questions).

Race Percentage N

White 50 26

Multiracial 13.5 7

East Asian 7.7 4

South Asian 5.8 3

Black or African American 3.8 2

Native Hawaiian or other pacific islander

1.9 1

Other or unknown 5.8 3

Prefer not to answer 11.5 6

Table 4: Race of respondents (n=52).

Ethnicity Percentage N

Not Hispanic or Latino 68.8 33

Hispanic or Latino 16.7 8

Filipino 2.1 1

Middle Eastern 2.1 1

Prefer not to answer 10.4 5

Table 5: Ethnicity of respondents (n=48).

Gender Percentage N

Male 67.3 35

Female 17.3 9

Genderqueer/Gender nonconforming 1.9 1

A different identity 1.9 1

Prefer not to answer 11.5 6

Table 6: Gender of respondents (n=52)

Figure 1: Results to initial questions about "master/slave" terminology. Based on their responses to "The use of Master-Slave terminology makes me feel uncomfortable, respondents are sent to a

different set of follow-up questions. The results from these questions are shown in Fig. 3. The most troubling takeaway from this data is that 45% of respondents who felt uncomfortable with the “master-slave” terminology strongly agree or agree that it reminds them that they are part of a historically excluded group, potentially invoking Stereotype Threat. At the same time, a full 28% of these students agree or strongly agree that use of this terminology makes them feel like an outsider in the classroom. All students who “strongly agree” that use of “master-slave” terminology makes them feel like an outsider are non-white, while those who responded “agree” include white females (both Hispanic and non-Hispanic) and African Americans.

Figure 2: Breakdown of percentage of respondents by demographics who responded "Agree" or

"Strongly agree" to whether the use of "Master/Slave" terminology makes them feel uncomfortable.

Additionally, 45% of respondents who are uncomfortable with the use of “master-slave” terminology strongly agree or agree that use of the terminology makes them feel historical guilt. These respondents identify exclusively as White or Multiracial. This indicates that use of “master-slave” terminology also reminds individuals in the majority group of their ethnic identity, which can also potentially lead to Stereotype Threat [5]. Students in this group were also largely favorable to the idea of replacing “master-slave” terminology in the classroom, with only 2 out of 22 responses opposing replacement outright. An additional 3 respondents pointed out, however, that if the terminology is only replaced in the classroom, it could cause confusion for students once they leave academia. Arguments in favor of replacing the terminology include everything from usefulness of the terminology in describing systems—”it's not like the use of 'master' and 'slave' are vital for understanding this engineering concept”—to its role in introducing Stereotype Threat—”It sucks when a student is constantly reminded that they are ‘different’ than their peers. Black students want to feel normal‚ not inferior‚ just like everyone else in their classrooms. But having a curriculum with tests, assignments, lectures, readings, datasheets, and conversations with the terminology Master-Slave, does NOT make us Black students feel equal, let alone normal.”

Some students also argued in favor of replacing the terminology due to the overall atmosphere it can create in the classroom/working environment: “When introduced, the shock creates a divide in the classroom between classmates and between students and professors. No one wants to use the term ‘slave’ due to historical context even when a question regarding the topic arises.” From these comments, “master-slave” terminology is potentially doing harm in the classrooms. In addition to excluding and evoking Stereotype Threat for some students of color, the uncomfortable atmosphere it creates in the classroom can potentially prevent students from all backgrounds from actively engaging and asking questions in the classroom. Therefore, devising a strategy to replace the terminology seems reasonable.

Figure 3: Response to questions asked to respondents who are made uncomfortable by use of

master/slave terminology.

With the rise of the “alt-right” on campuses [17], and the fact that previous attempts to replace this terminology has sparked intense publicity and backlash [10], it is important to also look at reactions from students who are not made uncomfortable by the terminology to gauge the potential for active student resistance and pre-emptively understand and address potential resistance. It is important to note that the group of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that the master-slave terminology made them feel uncomfortable (n=23), does not entirely consist of members of those who reported they are white, heterosexual males (the traditionally dominant demographic group. The group who is not made uncomfortable by this terminology also includes multiracial, South Asian, East Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander respondents. The group also includes Latino and Philipino students, and one gender non-conforming/non-binary student. Of these students, 52% report that they would feel empathetic to classmates who are made uncomfortable by the terminology, and 57% would be accepting of use of alternate terminology in the classroom. While this wide acceptance bodes well for a potential effort to replace the terminology, 22% of respondents who do not find that “master-slave” terminology makes them feel uncomfortable would not be accepting of a terminology change. All of the students who “strongly” disagree that they would be accepting of a terminology change declined to give their racial, ethnic, and gender identities. Those who merely “disagreed” with acceptance, however, included white, multiracial, South Asian, Latino, and gender non-conforming/non-binary students. Among students who oppose changing the terminology, arguments include an opposition to political correctness—”No, we should not break existing APIs [to] appease the politically 1

correct mob”—and a professed desire to enhance resilience among classmates—”when someone has some kind of anxiety the (clinically agreed upon) best way to treat them is through gradual exposure. Otherwise, that someone will not be prepared when something more offensive than the use of basic engineering terminology comes along.” These opinions are likely to be the most difficult to address and counter by a regular instructor in a single course. Among students who are not made uncomfortable by use of “master-slave” terminology, 12 respondents (52%) oppose any change outright, and an additional 3 (12%) oppose a change if it will cause confusion for students once they enter industry. Of those who oppose a change in terminology 17% argue that “master-slave” is an accurate description of the systems they describe. As most so-called “master-slave” systems do not, in fact, accurately describe a

1 Application Program Interface

traditional “master-slave” relationship [10], [12], addressing this misconception in the classroom and framing a move to non-“master-slave” as a means to increase technical accuracy and student understanding of the system could help reduce potential backlash from a terminology change. To address the argument that “master-slave” terminology is still widely used in industry it may be best to introduce students to the historical context of the terminology before replacing it with a more accurate, more inclusive terminology: “I think it is more important to mark a conscious transition away from this terminology than to hide it's existence. We need to acknowledge the prior convention and why it is not acceptable, instead of needlessly scrubbing it from ancient data sheets.” If nothing else, this would allow professors to meet the needs of industry, while providing an opportunity to address the terminology as exclusionary to certain historically marginalized groups, and as a technically incorrect and misleading application of the terminology. Professors could also point out many technical products, including the Python programming language are moving away from this terminology due to its potential for exclusion [18]. This would also allow professors to proactively counter the uncomfortable feelings, around these terms for all students. Indeed, research suggests that using a broad frame like this, that emphasizes the benefits of diversity and inclusion action to all participants can help maximize acceptance and minimize backlash to the change [19], [20]. Students reported a wide range of terms that could be used to replace “master-slave”, including “controller-controllee”, “driver-peripheral”, and “primary-secondary”. From a computer systems prospective, a phrase like “mainsystem-subsystem” or “main-secondary” would allow students to rely on common acronyms and signal naming conventions (ex. MISO/MOSI for serial interfaces) while still replacing the “master-slave” language. Conclusions This paper explored the implication of the use of “master-slave” terminology on students’ sense of inclusion in the classroom. 42% of all respondents, including 100% of African American respondents and female respondents report some degree of discomfort with this terminology. An additional 14% of respondents responded “neutral” to the question of whether use of the term made them feel uncomfortable. Of students who reported discomfort with the use of “master-slave” in the classroom, a significant portion either reported that the term reminded them of membership in a historically marginalized group or that the term made them feel historical guilt. Several individual students also argued against the continued use of “master-slave” terminology in the classroom, citing effects both on students from historically marginalized groups who may feel excluded, and effects on students from other groups who may feel insecure asking questions in class when the

terminology is discussed. These effects on student engagement and participation indicate that instructors should consider replacing “master-slave” terminology in the classroom. The data also show, however, that there are some students who, even if they knew their colleagues were made uncomfortable by “master-slave” terminology, would staunchly oppose a terminology change. This group includes students from multiple racial and ethnic backgrounds, and includes students from historically excluded gender identities, and may create a backlash against any changes. Looking at the totality of student responses about this term, it appears that a change in terminology would help improve student success and create a more inclusive classroom environment. To minimize backlash and to avoid “color-blind” racism, the authors further suggest that, rather than just eliminating “master-slave” terminology from the classroom, professors should first introduce “master-slave” terminology and its historical (and ongoing use), emphasize its negative effects on both some historically marginalized students and students from majority backgrounds, and explain the imprecision and inaccuracy of using “master-slave” to describe most modern engineering systems. The authors believe that this approach, where problematic terminology is confronted, addressed, and replaced will create a more inclusive classroom environment. Further research on this point, however, is warranted. References [1] H. Garrison, “Underrepresentation by Race–Ethnicity across Stages of U.S. Science and

Engineering Education,” CBE—Life Sci. Educ., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 357–363, Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-12-0207.

[2] A. Jones, “Minority groups underrepresented in STEM fields,” Brown Dly. Her., 2013. [3] C. M. Steele and J. Aronson, “Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 69, no. 5, p. 797, 1995. [4] S. J. Spencer, C. M. Steele, and D. M. Quinn, “Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math

Performance,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 4–28, Jan. 1999, doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.

[5] J. Aronson, M. J. Lustina, C. Good, K. Keough, C. M. Steele, and J. Brown, “When White Men Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 29–46, Jan. 1999, doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1371.

[6] J. Aronson, “The threat of stereotype,” Educ. Leadersh., vol. 62, pp. 14–20, 2004. [7] S. M. Jackson, A. L. Hillard, and T. R. Schneider, “Using implicit bias training to improve

attitudes toward women in STEM,” Soc. Psychol. Educ., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 419–438, Sep. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5.

[8] S. R. Harper and S. Hurtado, “Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation,” New Dir. Stud. Serv., vol. 2007, no. 120, pp. 7–24, 2007, doi: 10.1002/ss.254.

[9] J. Franklin, “Racial microaggressions, racial battle fatigue, and racism-related stress in

higher education,” J. Stud. Aff. N. Y. Univ., vol. 12, p. 44, 2016. [10]R. Eglash, “Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature,” Technol.

Cult., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 360–369, 2007, doi: 10.1353/tech.2007.0066. [11]M. Lachney, “Computational communities: African-American cultural capital in computer

science education,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 27, no. 3–4, pp. 175–196, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1080/08993408.2018.1429062.

[12]R. Hekkala, M.-K. Stein, and M. Rossi, “‘IT was a War that Wore out both Men and women...’ - Metaphors in an Information System Project,” in ECIS, 2014.

[13]F. Houghton and S. Houghton, “‘Blacklists’ and ‘whitelists’: a salutary warning concerning the prevalence of racist language in discussions of predatory publishing,” J. Med. Libr. Assoc. JMLA, vol. 106, no. 4, p. 527, 2018.

[14]A. Bell, C. Anderson-Cook, and S. Spencer, “Stereotype Threat In The Engineering Classroom,” presented at the 2004 Annual Conference, 2004, pp. 9.1117.1-9.1117.8.

[15]J. G. Stout and N. Dasgupta, “When He Doesn’t Mean You: Gender-Exclusive Language as Ostracism,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 757–769, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1177/0146167211406434.

[16]R. Likert, “A technique for the measurement of attitudes.,” Arch. Psychol., 1932. [17]D. M. Riley, “Refuse, Refute, Resist: Alt-Right Attacks on Engineering and STEM Education

Diversity Scholarship,” presented at the 2018 CoNECD - The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity Conference, 2018.

[18]“Issue 34605: Avoid master/slave terminology - Python tracker.” [Online]. Available: https://bugs.python.org/issue34605. [Accessed: 26-Jan-2020].

[19]M. Mobley and T. Payne, “Backlash! The challenge to diversity training,” Training & Development, 01-Dec-1992. [Online]. Available: https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A13604198/AONE?sid=lms. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2019].

[20]C. L. Holladay, J. L. Knight, D. L. Paige, and M. A. Quiñones, “The influence of framing on attitudes toward diversity training,” Hum. Resour. Dev. Q., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 245–263, 2003, doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1065.