What’s wrong with grit? – Considerations and Better Alternatives for Engineering Education Research

Abstract

Grit is conceptualized as a combination of passion and perseverance. Engineering education researchers are increasingly interested in studying grit as factor in student persistence, retention and success. The number of engineering education publications on grit is steadily rising each year, and there has been enough research on the topic that a systematic literature review was recently conducted. Despite the growing interest however, studying grit is problematic for a variety of methodological and philosophical reasons. PURPOSEThe purpose of this paper is to identify and explain eight methodological and philosophical problems with the concept of grit in the context of engineering education research. Our aim in doing so is to help engineering education researchers reflect more critically on its use and identify research questions that avoid the methodological and philosophical pitfalls identified. The paper contributes to this year's theme of 'capability development' by providing researchers with critical perspectives for better understanding the current research landscape and planning future studies. APPROACHThis paper treats grit as a discourse and utilizes a post-structural discourse analysis approach to analyse its problematic assumptions and functioning. The evidence supporting the analysis and argument is historical, sociological, philosophical, and methodological in nature. Drawing on perspectives and insights from these other disciplines allows us to introduce critiques not yet widely recognized in engineering education. OUTCOMESThe eight methodological, philosophical and functional problems with grit that this paper elucidates are divided into three aspects. The first aspect is assumptions and blind spots in study conceptualization. The second aspect is construct and evidentiary issues. The third aspect is effects on the engineering education system. CONCLUSIONSThe reasons to reconsider researching grit are numerous and multifaceted. Perpetuating the problematic features of grit research is not in the best interest of students or the field. Both will be better served by framing persistence and retention studies with questions about institutional, structural, and cultural factors instead.