The cover image depicts our model of professional shame (Huff et al., 2021) that conceptualizes the socio-psychological interaction between cultural expectations and individuals' internal evaluations of how they are meeting those expectations (Huff et al., 2020). Informed by relevant psychological and sociological literature, we define the construct of professional shame as having four important features: 1) individuals perceive themselves to have failed to meet socially constructed expectations that are relevant to their identities in a professional domain (Brown, 2006; H. B. Lewis, 1971; Tangney & Dearing, 2002); 2) individuals experience a painful emotional state amid such perceived failure (Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Van Vliet, 2008); 3) individuals attribute the failure to meet expectations to an inadequate whole, or global, self rather than a domain-specific feature of a certain identity (Ferguson et al., 2000; Gilbert, 2003; M. Lewis, 1995); and 4) individuals within professional domains not only experience the emotional state of shame but also contribute to expectations that establish the conditions for professional shame to occur (Brown, 2006; Scheff, 2003).

Individuals are actors in the professional shame experience in at least two ways. First, upon failing to meet a certain expectation or standard, shame occurs when an individual interprets the failure as a holistic devaluation of their global identity (Huff et al., 2021). This facet of the construct, as illustrated on the left side of the image, orients us to examine broader questions of well-being. In other words, when individuals within engineering education experience professional shame, how does the experience affect their overall psychological health and well-being?

However, professional shame does not occur within a contextual vacuum. As illustrated on the right side of the image, individuals take part in group behavior that reinforces the social expectations that construct the sociocultural backdrop of shame (Kamanda et al., 2021; Secules et al., 2021). A couple of important questions emerge from this side of the image: What are the sociocultural conditions of engineering education systems that facilitate these experiences? Additionally, by investigating professional shame, what insights do we learn about dominant narratives that perpetuate social exclusion within engineering programs (Brewer et al., 2015; McLean & Syed, 2015)?

By investigating the emotional construct of professional shame, we intentionally advance a scholarship of care within engineering education research that attends to the well-being needs of individuals within engineering programs and to the collective needs of cultivating equitable systems of engineering education.

封面图片描绘了我们的职业耻辱模式（Huff等人，2021年）概念化了文化期望与个人对他们如何满足这些期望的内部评估之间的社会心理互动（Huff等人，2020年）。根据相关的心理学和社会学文献，我们将职业耻辱的定义定义为具有以下四个重要特征：1）个人认为自己未能达到与职业领域中的身份相关的社会建构的期望（Brown，2006; HB Lewis，1971； Tangney＆Dearing，2002）。2）在这种感知到的失败中，个人会经历痛苦的​​情绪状态（Tangney＆Dearing，2002； Van Vliet，2008）；3）个人将未能达到预期的原因归结为整体或整体的不足，自我而非特定身份的领域特定特征（Ferguson等，2000； Gilbert，2003； M。Lewis，1995）；（4）专业领域内的个体不仅会经历羞耻的情绪状态，而且会为建立职业羞耻发生条件的期望做出贡献（Brown，2006; Scheff，2003）。

在至少两种方面，个人是职业耻辱经历中的参与者。首先，一旦未能满足某个期望或标准，当一个人将失败解释为他们的整体身份的整体贬值时，就会感到羞耻（Huff等人，2021年）。如图像左侧所示，此构架的这一方面使我们能够研究更广泛的幸福问题。换句话说，当接受工程教育的个人遭受专业耻辱时，这种经历如何影响他们的整体心理健康和幸福感？

但是，专业上的耻辱不会在上下文真空中发生。如图像右侧所示，个人参与了增强社会期望的群体行为，这些期望构成了羞辱的社会文化背景（Kamanda等，2021； Secules等，2021）。从图像的这一方面出现了两个重要的问题：促进这些体验的工程教育系统的社会文化条件是什么？此外，通过调查专业人士的耻辱感，我们对在工程项目中使社会排斥永存的主流叙事学到了哪些见解（Brewer等人，2015； McLean＆Syed，2015）？

通过调查专业羞耻感的情感构造，我们有意在工程教育研究中提高了护理奖学金的水平，以满足研究计划中个人的福祉需求以及培养公平的工程教育体系的集体需求。