Background: The engineering education research community has increasingly acknowledged the importance of addressing equity and inclusion. Qualitative research approaches have a unique power to reform classroom practice, create empathy for students, understand context, and point towards new paradigms and solutions. In our work, we have found critical social theories provide useful ways of looking at, critiquing, and reimagining inequitable educational settings. However, many scholars theory in a limited way with theory, treating it as a utilitarian choice rather than requiring deep engagement. Without careful consideration of the situated historical context for a theory’s origin, we can distort its original purpose. Purpose: This paper highlights funds of knowledge, cultural production, and cultural construction as three prominent theoretical frameworks for educational culture. Following the methodological approach of historicizing, we recontextualize the present use of the theoretical frameworks by better understanding their historical context. Scope: We introduce each of the three frameworks and present an account of the history of the origins of the frameworks, emphasizing the context within which the originators found themselves and what problems they saw themselves as addressing. Next, we discuss how it is currently being leveraged in US engineering education or related fields, noting perceived problems or patterns related to the application of theory. Finally, we consider the differences between the past and the present contexts to help guide future use of the framework, noting what lessons we can take away from the past that speak to issues in the present. Conclusion: We compare the nuanced differences between the frameworks and call on readers to make a more careful and less casual choice regarding theory. We also note the importance of considering historicity, situatedness, and reflexivity when deeply engaging with research on educational culture and critical theoretical approaches.
{"title":"Contextualizing the Past to Guide the Future: Situating Three Critical Theoretical Frameworks for Educational Culture","authors":"Stephen Secules, J. Mejia","doi":"10.21061/SEE.51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.51","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The engineering education research community has increasingly acknowledged the importance of addressing equity and inclusion. Qualitative research approaches have a unique power to reform classroom practice, create empathy for students, understand context, and point towards new paradigms and solutions. In our work, we have found critical social theories provide useful ways of looking at, critiquing, and reimagining inequitable educational settings. However, many scholars theory in a limited way with theory, treating it as a utilitarian choice rather than requiring deep engagement. Without careful consideration of the situated historical context for a theory’s origin, we can distort its original purpose. Purpose: This paper highlights funds of knowledge, cultural production, and cultural construction as three prominent theoretical frameworks for educational culture. Following the methodological approach of historicizing, we recontextualize the present use of the theoretical frameworks by better understanding their historical context. Scope: We introduce each of the three frameworks and present an account of the history of the origins of the frameworks, emphasizing the context within which the originators found themselves and what problems they saw themselves as addressing. Next, we discuss how it is currently being leveraged in US engineering education or related fields, noting perceived problems or patterns related to the application of theory. Finally, we consider the differences between the past and the present contexts to help guide future use of the framework, noting what lessons we can take away from the past that speak to issues in the present. Conclusion: We compare the nuanced differences between the frameworks and call on readers to make a more careful and less casual choice regarding theory. We also note the importance of considering historicity, situatedness, and reflexivity when deeply engaging with research on educational culture and critical theoretical approaches.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129708313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Kajfez, Dennis M. Lee, Katherine M. Ehlert, Courtney J. Faber, L. Benson, Marian S. Kennedy
Background: Identity research in engineering education has been expanding to include multiple forms of measurement. While a variety of approaches have successfully contributed to our understanding of identity, mixed method approaches have been utilized minimally in identity research. Therefore, additional insight on the implications and affordances of mixed method approaches for identity research is needed. Purpose: Our work explored undergraduate engineering students’ researcher identity using a fully integrated mixed method approach by interweaving deductive (quantitative) and inductive (qualitative) strands of survey and interview data. We aimed to answer the research question: How can quantitative and qualitative data approaches be used in combination to explore how students conceptualize their researcher identity? Method: The data included responses from 20 undergraduate mechanical and biomedical engineering students representing six different institutions. Students completed surveys, and their survey responses served as a foundation for subsequent interviews. Both the survey and interview contained an identical item (a single anchored scale measure of researcher identity), which directly connected the two data sets. While the survey data was used during the interviews, analysis of the strands was initially separate but concurrent. Results: After initial analysis, mixing the data provided two key opportunities to attain a deep understanding of participants’ researcher identity. The anchored scale provided a platform to discuss researcher identity with participants and allowed us to look within and across participants’ experiences in unexpected ways. Our discoveries of how individual students’ conceptualizations of the identity being measured varied and how those conceptualizations changed over time were only possible through the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. Conclusions: Our fully integrated mixed method approach resulted in a more complete understanding of students’ researcher identities, allowing us to extend our theoretical understanding beyond what would have been possible with either method alone. Researchers exploring complex topics that can be fluid and affected by time and experience, such as identity, may benefit from integrating a similar approach into their research protocols.
{"title":"A Mixed Method Approach to Understanding Researcher Identity","authors":"R. Kajfez, Dennis M. Lee, Katherine M. Ehlert, Courtney J. Faber, L. Benson, Marian S. Kennedy","doi":"10.21061/SEE.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.24","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Identity research in engineering education has been expanding to include multiple forms of measurement. While a variety of approaches have successfully contributed to our understanding of identity, mixed method approaches have been utilized minimally in identity research. Therefore, additional insight on the implications and affordances of mixed method approaches for identity research is needed. Purpose: Our work explored undergraduate engineering students’ researcher identity using a fully integrated mixed method approach by interweaving deductive (quantitative) and inductive (qualitative) strands of survey and interview data. We aimed to answer the research question: How can quantitative and qualitative data approaches be used in combination to explore how students conceptualize their researcher identity? Method: The data included responses from 20 undergraduate mechanical and biomedical engineering students representing six different institutions. Students completed surveys, and their survey responses served as a foundation for subsequent interviews. Both the survey and interview contained an identical item (a single anchored scale measure of researcher identity), which directly connected the two data sets. While the survey data was used during the interviews, analysis of the strands was initially separate but concurrent. Results: After initial analysis, mixing the data provided two key opportunities to attain a deep understanding of participants’ researcher identity. The anchored scale provided a platform to discuss researcher identity with participants and allowed us to look within and across participants’ experiences in unexpected ways. Our discoveries of how individual students’ conceptualizations of the identity being measured varied and how those conceptualizations changed over time were only possible through the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. Conclusions: Our fully integrated mixed method approach resulted in a more complete understanding of students’ researcher identities, allowing us to extend our theoretical understanding beyond what would have been possible with either method alone. Researchers exploring complex topics that can be fluid and affected by time and experience, such as identity, may benefit from integrating a similar approach into their research protocols.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128207076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Positionality captures how the researcher is positioned, personally, socially, and politically, in relation to the study’s context. A researcher’s positionality influences each step of the project, which makes it a critical component to make visible in publications. Purpose: The purpose of this research article is to explore current considerations of positionality in engineering education research by highlighting example statements across journals and modes of inquiry. We considered qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches to engaging with questions of interest to the field. Design/Method: We surveyed three journals in the field of engineering education: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), the International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE), and the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE) in the timeframe of 2008–2020. We used search terms from the Engineering Education Research Taxonomy as a starting point for searching each journal and pulling abstracts to begin parsing relevant articles, including a direct search for positionality. The direct search results were narrowed down by appending personal pronouns to positionality-oriented language, such as “lens,” “perspective,” and “experience.” We found 15 examples of positionality statements, which we categorized based upon their content in relation to their study’s context and where the statement appeared in the manuscript. Results: Explicit positionality statements were sparse across the reviewed journals. The few positionality statements we could locate exhibited three main approaches: disclosing identities, disclosing experience and opportunities, and disclosing journeys. We draw particular attention to the language used in the positionality statements to highlight differences in writing style and the relative space dedicated to discussing issues of positionality in the example publications. Conclusions: A degree of vulnerability is needed for a researcher to construct positionality statements for their work, which is shared publicly with a research community. Reflection, accountability, and admission of lessons learned are not readily discussed across engineering education research. Accordingly, we offer suggestions and raise questions for the broader community to engage with their—often unstated or underemphasized—influences in the research process, especially with quantitative approaches.
{"title":"Positionality Statements in Engineering Education Research: A Look at the Hand that Guides the Methodological Tools","authors":"Cynthia Hampton, David P. Reeping, D. Ozkan","doi":"10.21061/SEE.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.13","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Positionality captures how the researcher is positioned, personally, socially, and politically, in relation to the study’s context. A researcher’s positionality influences each step of the project, which makes it a critical component to make visible in publications. Purpose: The purpose of this research article is to explore current considerations of positionality in engineering education research by highlighting example statements across journals and modes of inquiry. We considered qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches to engaging with questions of interest to the field. Design/Method: We surveyed three journals in the field of engineering education: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), the International Journal of Engineering Education (IJEE), and the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE) in the timeframe of 2008–2020. We used search terms from the Engineering Education Research Taxonomy as a starting point for searching each journal and pulling abstracts to begin parsing relevant articles, including a direct search for positionality. The direct search results were narrowed down by appending personal pronouns to positionality-oriented language, such as “lens,” “perspective,” and “experience.” We found 15 examples of positionality statements, which we categorized based upon their content in relation to their study’s context and where the statement appeared in the manuscript. Results: Explicit positionality statements were sparse across the reviewed journals. The few positionality statements we could locate exhibited three main approaches: disclosing identities, disclosing experience and opportunities, and disclosing journeys. We draw particular attention to the language used in the positionality statements to highlight differences in writing style and the relative space dedicated to discussing issues of positionality in the example publications. Conclusions: A degree of vulnerability is needed for a researcher to construct positionality statements for their work, which is shared publicly with a research community. Reflection, accountability, and admission of lessons learned are not readily discussed across engineering education research. Accordingly, we offer suggestions and raise questions for the broader community to engage with their—often unstated or underemphasized—influences in the research process, especially with quantitative approaches.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123776590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Cross, N. A. Mamaril, Nicole Johnson‐Glauch, Geoffrey L. Herman
Background: National calls to improve engineering education have prompted educators to explore ways to implement change. We need a better understanding of how research-based instructional strategies (RBISs) are sustainably adopted among faculty. Prior studies indicated that developing collaborations and a shared vision among faculty facilitates adoption, but few studies demonstrate successful efforts to create these collaborations. Purpose/Hypothesis: We seek to understand the process of developing a culture of collaboration among STEM faculty interested in implementing instructional innovation in engineering and to characterize the process of how the STEM faculty community of practice (COP) develops and functions. To achieve this, we investigated two research questions: 1) How do participants describe their experience in the SIIP – a program designed to promote and support collaborations around teaching innovation? 2) What patterns and themes emerge in the experiences of participants? Design/Method: We applied an exploratory phenomenological approach, using semi-structured interviews with 12 STEM faculty members across academic ranks. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis process with multiple rounds of coding. Results: The participants’ experiences revealed that social capital and shared accountability support building a collaborative culture among engineering faculty engaged in instructional innovation. The community of practice provided organizational support and resources to STEM faculty that enabled community behaviors including knowledge sharing about teaching. Conclusions: Building a community of practice among STEM faculty for education reform requires invested faculty, structural support by the institution (e.g., instructional initiatives programs), and a collaborative environment. Recommendations are provided for building a local version of a STEM faculty learning community committed to improving instruction.
{"title":"Building Cultures of Collaboration That Promote Instructional Change","authors":"K. Cross, N. A. Mamaril, Nicole Johnson‐Glauch, Geoffrey L. Herman","doi":"10.21061/SEE.48","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.48","url":null,"abstract":"Background: National calls to improve engineering education have prompted educators to explore ways to implement change. We need a better understanding of how research-based instructional strategies (RBISs) are sustainably adopted among faculty. Prior studies indicated that developing collaborations and a shared vision among faculty facilitates adoption, but few studies demonstrate successful efforts to create these collaborations. Purpose/Hypothesis: We seek to understand the process of developing a culture of collaboration among STEM faculty interested in implementing instructional innovation in engineering and to characterize the process of how the STEM faculty community of practice (COP) develops and functions. To achieve this, we investigated two research questions: 1) How do participants describe their experience in the SIIP – a program designed to promote and support collaborations around teaching innovation? 2) What patterns and themes emerge in the experiences of participants? Design/Method: We applied an exploratory phenomenological approach, using semi-structured interviews with 12 STEM faculty members across academic ranks. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis process with multiple rounds of coding. Results: The participants’ experiences revealed that social capital and shared accountability support building a collaborative culture among engineering faculty engaged in instructional innovation. The community of practice provided organizational support and resources to STEM faculty that enabled community behaviors including knowledge sharing about teaching. Conclusions: Building a community of practice among STEM faculty for education reform requires invested faculty, structural support by the institution (e.g., instructional initiatives programs), and a collaborative environment. Recommendations are provided for building a local version of a STEM faculty learning community committed to improving instruction.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121291558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Haverkamp, M. Bothwell, Devlin Montfort, Qwo-Li Driskill
Background: Dominant discourse regarding gender in engineering and engineering education relies on simplistic notions of gender as a rigid binary, which obscures the existence of transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people and the gender dynamics they experience. Purpose: This paper seeks to address the limits of the dominant gender discourse and research paradigm and propose new paths forward. This article calls researchers to intentionally transform their approach and framing of gender to create gender equity for all. Scope: An examination of existing literature in engineering education is put against prevailing theories of gender and human difference from across academia. The overwhelming majority of literature in the field exists within a reductive gender binary. TGNC students and professionals are largely invisible in engineering education research and theory and this exclusion causes harm to individuals as well as our community as a whole. Such exclusion is not limited to engineering contexts but is found to be a central component of systemic TGNC marginalization in higher education and in the United States. Discussion: We call for a substantive disciplinary shift towards studying the deep complexity of gender informed by, and accountable to, literature on gender theory, queer studies, and feminist research methodology. We propose interventions for engineering education researchers categorized into three levels: 1) Micro—to recognize gender diversity in engineering education; 2) Meso—to describe and analyze the experiences of TGNC students in research; and 3) Macro—to transform our discipline’s conceptualization and theoretical framing of gender.
{"title":"Calling for a Paradigm Shift in the Study of Gender in Engineering Education","authors":"A. Haverkamp, M. Bothwell, Devlin Montfort, Qwo-Li Driskill","doi":"10.21061/SEE.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.34","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Dominant discourse regarding gender in engineering and engineering education relies on simplistic notions of gender as a rigid binary, which obscures the existence of transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people and the gender dynamics they experience. Purpose: This paper seeks to address the limits of the dominant gender discourse and research paradigm and propose new paths forward. This article calls researchers to intentionally transform their approach and framing of gender to create gender equity for all. Scope: An examination of existing literature in engineering education is put against prevailing theories of gender and human difference from across academia. The overwhelming majority of literature in the field exists within a reductive gender binary. TGNC students and professionals are largely invisible in engineering education research and theory and this exclusion causes harm to individuals as well as our community as a whole. Such exclusion is not limited to engineering contexts but is found to be a central component of systemic TGNC marginalization in higher education and in the United States. Discussion: We call for a substantive disciplinary shift towards studying the deep complexity of gender informed by, and accountable to, literature on gender theory, queer studies, and feminist research methodology. We propose interventions for engineering education researchers categorized into three levels: 1) Micro—to recognize gender diversity in engineering education; 2) Meso—to describe and analyze the experiences of TGNC students in research; and 3) Macro—to transform our discipline’s conceptualization and theoretical framing of gender.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127247095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: One of the most popular methods for studying the cognitive processes of design and problem-solving activity is Protocol Analysis (PA). As such, PA has been widely used in engineering design education research. Purpose: The aim of this work is to describe how PA has been used in engineering design education contexts, understanding the range of research questions that can be addressed by the method as well as providing some commentary on the strengths, limitations, and future directions of the method. Scope/Method: We conduct a systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA method. A search combining key terms – protocol analysis, design, engineering, student – and their variants in the Scopus database resulted in 126 articles, which were further reduced to 45 through two rounds of abstract and full-text screening. The main inclusion criteria was that the work use PA as the method to investigate design activities in an engineering educational setting. Conclusions: The use of PA has significantly contributed to understanding the cognition of students engaged in design activities and to improving engineering design education. Technological advances enable new efficiencies in protocol collection and analysis, offering promising new directions in the use of PA in more authentic learning environments.
{"title":"Protocol Analysis in Engineering Design Education Research: Observations, Limitations, and Opportunities","authors":"Greg Litster, A. Hurst","doi":"10.21061/SEE.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/SEE.27","url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the most popular methods for studying the cognitive processes of design and problem-solving activity is Protocol Analysis (PA). As such, PA has been widely used in engineering design education research. Purpose: The aim of this work is to describe how PA has been used in engineering design education contexts, understanding the range of research questions that can be addressed by the method as well as providing some commentary on the strengths, limitations, and future directions of the method. Scope/Method: We conduct a systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA method. A search combining key terms – protocol analysis, design, engineering, student – and their variants in the Scopus database resulted in 126 articles, which were further reduced to 45 through two rounds of abstract and full-text screening. The main inclusion criteria was that the work use PA as the method to investigate design activities in an engineering educational setting. Conclusions: The use of PA has significantly contributed to understanding the cognition of students engaged in design activities and to improving engineering design education. Technological advances enable new efficiencies in protocol collection and analysis, offering promising new directions in the use of PA in more authentic learning environments.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123488243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
James L. Huff, Joachim Walther, Nicola W. Sochacka, Mackenzie Sharbine, Hindolo Kamanda
Background: The engineering education research community has embraced a diverse range of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research approaches. In line with the pragmatic roots of both engineering practice and education, we concur with past scholars that no particular method is better than any other. Rather, the method should be determined by the nature of the research object or the social reality of interest. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this article is to discuss investigations of complex phenomena that have both individual and socially constructed features by using a mixed qualitative methods approach. Our discussion focuses on how to honor, maintain, and leverage the methodological commitments of multiple approaches to achieve a coherent understanding of the social reality under investigation. Design/Method: We introduce a method to map a social system of interest and define the scope and nature of a specific and researchable social reality within that social system. We specifically draw on an example of our study of professional shame in engineering contexts, describing how articulating this social reality enabled us to select two qualitative approaches, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) and ethnographic focus groups, to thoroughly examine the phenomenon. Results: Drawing on data from a larger study, we demonstrate how the two methodologies allowed us to see different features of professional shame. IPA provided a lens into students’ intrapsychic experiences of shame, while the ethnographic lens provided a window into the social construction and maintenance of the norms, expectations, and master narratives that can provoke shame experiences in individual students. Conclusions: We found that combining multiple qualitative methods, based on an explicit and shared definition of the social reality under investigation, afforded a coherent, empirical understanding of a complex social reality that one method alone could not have provided. Although mixing qualitative methods does demand a cogent way of managing multiple methodological mindsets, the whole outcome of both approaches was greater than the sum of the individual parts. We encourage other engineering education researchers to similarly consider the use of mixed qualitative methods when investigating complex socio-psychological phenomena.
{"title":"Coupling Methodological Commitments to Make Sense of Socio-Psychological Experience","authors":"James L. Huff, Joachim Walther, Nicola W. Sochacka, Mackenzie Sharbine, Hindolo Kamanda","doi":"10.21061/see.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.29","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The engineering education research community has embraced a diverse range of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research approaches. In line with the pragmatic roots of both engineering practice and education, we concur with past scholars that no particular method is better than any other. Rather, the method should be determined by the nature of the research object or the social reality of interest. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this article is to discuss investigations of complex phenomena that have both individual and socially constructed features by using a mixed qualitative methods approach. Our discussion focuses on how to honor, maintain, and leverage the methodological commitments of multiple approaches to achieve a coherent understanding of the social reality under investigation. Design/Method: We introduce a method to map a social system of interest and define the scope and nature of a specific and researchable social reality within that social system. We specifically draw on an example of our study of professional shame in engineering contexts, describing how articulating this social reality enabled us to select two qualitative approaches, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) and ethnographic focus groups, to thoroughly examine the phenomenon. Results: Drawing on data from a larger study, we demonstrate how the two methodologies allowed us to see different features of professional shame. IPA provided a lens into students’ intrapsychic experiences of shame, while the ethnographic lens provided a window into the social construction and maintenance of the norms, expectations, and master narratives that can provoke shame experiences in individual students. Conclusions: We found that combining multiple qualitative methods, based on an explicit and shared definition of the social reality under investigation, afforded a coherent, empirical understanding of a complex social reality that one method alone could not have provided. Although mixing qualitative methods does demand a cogent way of managing multiple methodological mindsets, the whole outcome of both approaches was greater than the sum of the individual parts. We encourage other engineering education researchers to similarly consider the use of mixed qualitative methods when investigating complex socio-psychological phenomena.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"42 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123258469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This response to Julie Martin and Chavone Garza’s article published in Studies in Engineering Education, “Centering the Marginalized Student’s Voice Through Autoethnography: Implications for Engineering Education Research,” discusses considerations in the process of research, particularly for white researchers. This reflection draws on coloring epistemologies and white supremacy characteristics to re-examine questions of how quantitative research paradigms can be challenged. Reflection on how the process and product of Martin and Garza’s article changed the way the author thinks about her research and begins to raise points of conversation for white researchers engaged in quantitative and mixed methods work.
{"title":"Sitting in the Tensions: Challenging Whiteness in Quantitative Research","authors":"Allison Godwin","doi":"10.21061/see.64","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.64","url":null,"abstract":"This response to Julie Martin and Chavone Garza’s article published in Studies in Engineering Education, “Centering the Marginalized Student’s Voice Through Autoethnography: Implications for Engineering Education Research,” discusses considerations in the process of research, particularly for white researchers. This reflection draws on coloring epistemologies and white supremacy characteristics to re-examine questions of how quantitative research paradigms can be challenged. Reflection on how the process and product of Martin and Garza’s article changed the way the author thinks about her research and begins to raise points of conversation for white researchers engaged in quantitative and mixed methods work.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123228781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“Reality is known when based in the historical roots of Black feminist thought, embodying a distinguishable difference in cultural standpoint, located in the intersection/overlap of the culturally constructed socializations of race, gender, and other identities and the historical and contemporary contexts of oppressions and resistance for African-American women” Cynthia Dillard (2000) definition of endarkend feminist epistemology.
{"title":"Black Education in the US: Telling/Understanding Chavone’s Story with Integrity and Strength","authors":"K. Cross","doi":"10.21061/see.63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.63","url":null,"abstract":"“Reality is known when based in the historical roots of Black feminist thought, embodying a distinguishable difference in cultural standpoint, located in the intersection/overlap of the culturally constructed socializations of race, gender, and other identities and the historical and contemporary contexts of oppressions and resistance for African-American women” Cynthia Dillard (2000) definition of endarkend feminist epistemology.","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128266469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jack Morelock, NicolaW. Sochacka, Christian M. Culloty, Jacob S. Hopkins, Racheida S. Lewis, Joachim Walther
{"title":"Who Benefits? Understanding the Impacts of Faculty Development Efforts on Engineering Faculty and Student Capacity through the COVID-19 Transition to Online Learning","authors":"Jack Morelock, NicolaW. Sochacka, Christian M. Culloty, Jacob S. Hopkins, Racheida S. Lewis, Joachim Walther","doi":"10.21061/see.91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21061/see.91","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":117277,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Engineering Education","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124735211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：