An ethnographic study of an engineering community: Mentoring as a tacit rule and its implications for how people learn

Abstract

Background: Laboratory studies explore the norms and characteristics of scientific practice and explain the constructive nature of knowledge production.However, how learning and research are sustained in engineering research laboratories at the graduate level requires further investigation.Purpose: We explored the cultural characteristics of an interdisciplinary engineering research center and documented how its members interacted and sustained both research and learning activities. Design/Method: We employed ethnographic data collection strategies to document the process of developing expertise (i.e., learning) and meaningfully contributing (i.e., research) at the center. Participant observations, field notes, and interviews were conducted.Results: The center did not resemble the research laboratories described in prior ethnographic studies in terms of physical space; however, it is an organizational system that demonstrates various dimensions of human activity. We present our results in four subsections: (1) configurations of the research groups, (2) the roles and responsibilities of the engineering researchers,(3) characterization of the research center as a community of practice, and (4) authentic engineering practices. Mentoring as a tacit rule played a central role in sustaining engineering learning and research activities. It was dependent on the managerial preferences of lead engineering researchers as they developed different identities over time. Meetings, cultural transformation, shared repertoire, and tools characterized the center as a community of practice.Conclusions: Our findings inform how people learn. Educational settings should foster similar characteristics (e.g., mentoring to sustain engineering research, learning, and building a community of practice) to better portray authentic engineering and science practices to students.

The production of laboratory scientists: Negotiating membership and (re)producing culture

“…There has been an increasing interest in studying the training of novice scientists. For example, Austin (2002) and Bieber and Worley (2006) focused on the graduate students' career trajectory towards faculty positions; Minshew et al (2021) reviewed the use of apprenticeship-based framework in STEM graduate training; Ayar and Yalvac (2022) studied how engineering graduate students learn through mentorship; Barab and Hay (2001), Walker and Sampson (2013), and Huang (2021) examined classroom-based teaching strategies for science students. Nevertheless, very few studies have examined the "critical period" of career development for most scientists, namely when they were first recruited and introduced to the laboratories in their undergraduate years.…”

Evaluating the quality of interviews with a process-based, self-reflective tool

“…Semi-structured interviews similarly use a pre-determined interview protocol based on the phenomenon in question, however, it serves more as a guide rather than a strict script, resulting in deviations from the questions during the interview. Semi-structured interviewing has become the dominant structure of interviewing in EER, with numerous studies using the practice to gain deep understanding of participants' experiences across a variety of topics ranging from engineering student learning [27,28], thriving [29,30], and social capital [31] to faculty instructional approaches [32,33] and engineering culture [34].…”