Productive tensions? Analyzing the arguments made about the field of engineering education research

Abstract

Background: A body of literature has arisen analyzing and legitimating the emerging field of engineering education research (EER). Using concepts from the sociology of knowledge, EER can be described as a region because it has relationships both to other academic fields and to its field of practice. Of interest is the strength of boundaries between these fields, described by the sociologist Bernstein's concept of classification. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study addresses the research questions: (1) How, when and by whom are arguments made to strengthen or weaken the boundaries, first between EER and other academic fields and second between EER and engineering teaching? (2) How do these arguments change across time and national contexts? Design/Method: Drawing on a survey of 21 EER experts, this sociological discourse analysis focuses on a purposive dataset of 17 papers from 2000 to 2020. Results: The study identified three main arguments in this literature, favoring: (1) strong classification (a singular in sociological terms); (2a) a region linked outward to teaching practice; and (2b) a region linked inward to other social science disciplines. Conclusions:The argument for EER as a strongly classified field has served value in establishing legitimacy and associated resources in some contexts buthas not yet delivered a unique knowledge base for such legitimation. An alternative framing holds together the productive tension between two directions in which EER as a region can face: Looking inward to parent disciplines for theoretical and methodological direction and looking outward to the world of practice for meaningful problems to guide its studies.

Engineering Discourse and its Role in Shaping Modern Engineering Education

“…Also, engineering practice can be successfully integrated into engineering education by introducing the period of placement, practical training, industrial experience, partaking in student construction brigades, etc. (Klassen & Case, 2022). The approach has proven effective by the existence of persistent cooperative courses in engineering regardless the shortage of funds and sometimes poorly coordinated efforts involved in organization of these courses.…”

Using higher education and other social sciences research to inform engineering education research: A cross‐national perspective

“…A recent article published in this journal by two of us analyzed the arguments made for legitimizing engineering education research (EER) as a field and suggested there might be value in having a porous boundary between our field and other relevant academic disciplines (Klassen & Case, 2022). In this editorial, drawing in a broader group of EER researchers from around the globe, we considered exemplars of research explicitly grounded in the social sciences to illustrate the particular value this approach might offer for EER and to provide some practical advice for readers who might be keen to explore in this direction.…”

Understanding Research on Engineering Students’ Experiences and Outcomes from Student Development Perspectives

“…A particularly interesting finding from our review is that some ESEO studies employed frameworks that were developed in prior engineering education research. These theoretical directions in framing ESEO studies demonstrate inward looking to parent disciplines for conceptual guidance and outward looking to problems in the practice of engineering education-two tendencies in engineering education research as identified by Klassen and Case (2021). They can also suggest that ESEO research is an area that requires knowledge that transcends disciplines.…”