skip to main content


Title: Peer Review in an Emerging Interdisciplinary Field: Identifying Differences in Authors’ Experiences and Perspectives
Engineering Education Research (EER) is an emerging interdisciplinary field (Beddoes, 2014a; Jesiek, Newswander, & Borrego, 2009). Having emerged less than twenty years ago, the field’s boundaries and normativities are still shifting and being formed. Furthermore, EER is inherently interdisciplinary, drawing on theories and methods from other fields, including education, psychology, and anthropology, among others (Beddoes, 2014b). These characteristics - the age and interdisciplinary nature of the field - make EER a particularly interesting site for examining a discipline in the making. One process through which the field’s boundaries and normativities are being formed is peer review (Beddoes, 2011). Therefore, the overarching goal of this project is to identify the kinds of scholarship that are readily accepted into the field and the kinds that are not. Examining this boundary work can produce new insights into the social construction of knowledge in EER, as well as in other interdisciplinary fields. As a first step toward the overarching goal, this paper presents preliminary findings that address the question: What differences exist in the experiences, perceptions, and understandings of those who have submitted articles to the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) within the past 5 years?  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1929728
NSF-PAR ID:
10174296
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Hawaii International Conference on Education
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    This Work-In-Progress paper highlights the work being done as part of an on-going project to explore the field of Engineering Education Research (EER) through the perspective of the peer review process. The overarching objective of this project is to identify the kinds of scholarship readily accepted into the field of engineering education research through peer review processes, and the kinds that are not. By identifying what approaches, topics, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies are accepted and not accepted through the peer review process, the field can be more open to discussion of the advancement of EER. More broadly, identifying such boundary knowledge can facilitate new understanding of how the social construction of knowledge occurs in interdisciplinary fields beyond engineering education. As a first step toward these larger objectives, we review relevant literature and outline our participants as well as our analytic plan. 
    more » « less
  2. Eastern Mennonite University received a 5-year S-STEM award for their STEM Scholars Engaging in Local Problems (SSELP) program. The goal of this place-based, interdisciplinary scholarship program is to increase the number of academically talented, low-income students who graduate in STEM fields and either pursue immediate employment in STEM careers or STEM-related service or continue their STEM education in graduate school. In 2018 and 2019, two cohorts of seven students were recruited to major in biology, chemistry, engineering, computer science, mathematics, or environmental science. A key part of recruitment involved on-campus interviews, during a February Scholarship Day, between STEM faculty and potential scholars. As the yield rate for the event is high (54-66%), the university has continued this practice, funding additional STEM scholarships. In order to retain and graduate the scholars in STEM fields, the SSELP faculty designed and carried out various projects and activities to support the students. The SSELP Scholars participated in a first-year STEM Career Practicum class, a one-credit course that connected students with regional STEM practitioners across a variety of fields. The scholars were supported by peer tutors embedded in STEM classes, and now many are tutors themselves. They participated in collaborative projects where the cohorts worked to identify and solve a problem or need in their community. The SSELP scholars were supported by both faculty and peer mentors. Each scholarship recipient was matched with a faculty mentor in addition to an academic advisor. A faculty mentor was in a related STEM field but typically not teaching the student. Each scholar was matched with a peer mentor (junior or senior) in their intended major of study. In addition, community building activities were implemented to provide a significant framework for interaction within the cohort. To evaluate the progress of the SSELP program, multiple surveys were conducted. HERI/CIRP Freshman Survey was used in the fall of 2018 for the first cohort and 2019 for the second cohort. The survey indicated an upward shift in students’ perception of science and in making collaborative effort towards positive change. Preliminary data on the Science Motivation Questionnaire showed that the SSELP scholars began their university studies with lower averages than their non-SSELP STEM peers in almost every area of science motivation. After over three years of implementation of the NSF-funded STEM Scholars Engaging in Local Problems program, the recruitment effort has grown significantly in STEM fields in the university. Within the two cohorts, the most common majors were environmental science and engineering. While 100% of Cohorts 1 and 2 students were retained into the Fall semester of the second year, two students from Cohort 1 left the program between the third and fourth semesters of their studies. While one student from Cohort 2 had a leave of absence, they have returned to continue their studies. The support system formed among the SSELP scholars and between the scholars and faculty has benefited the students in both their academic achievement as well as their personal growth. 
    more » « less
  3. ABSTRACT CONTEXT The peer review process plays a critical role in ensuring the quality of work published within a field and advancing the knowledge within the research community. However, for many members of the community, the process of peer review largely remains a black box to many scholars, especially those with less experience within the community. Therefore, there is a need to illuminate the peer review process for the research community. PURPOSE OR GOAL To more transparently reveal the contents of the black box around the peer review process, we interviewed editors (associate and deputy editors) for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) to provide editor perspectives on the overall peer review process. The goal of this paper is to clearly articulate the behind-the-scenes processes of peer review as well as the expectations and perceptions of the editors with respect to publishing within JEE. By bringing these processes to light, we hope that more members of the field will be aware of the overall process and the associated expectations for contributing to the field. APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS To meet the goals of this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with six editors of JEE who worked in the field of engineering education research (EER), as a part of a larger project exploring the boundaries of the field as expressed within the peer reviews process. The interviewer from the research team followed a protocol but also asked additional questions to elicit more details in some cases. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded using an open-coding process. ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Based on the analysis of the editor interviews, we present three critical aspects of the peer review process: the types of editors, the process that editors typically conduct to identify reviewers, and the types of decisions through the process. Additionally, we highlight considerations and advice from the editors to help members of the EER community develop. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY The current study makes the editors’ perspectives and decision-making processes more explicit to readers. These decision-making processes are full of careful considerations and also challenges. By doing so, we hope to help the members of the EER community gain a better understanding of what is going on backstage of the peer review process. 
    more » « less
  4. This theory paper describes the development and use of a framework for supporting early career faculty development, especially in competitive National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER proposals. Engineering Education Research (EER) has developed into a field of expertise and a career pathway over the past three decades. In response to numerous reports in the 1990s and early 2000s, multiple EER graduate programs were established in the mid-2000s and a growing number continue to emerge to educate and train the next generation of EER faculty and policy makers. Historically, many came to EER as individuals trained in other disciplines, but with an interest in improving teaching and learning. This approach created an interdisciplinary space where many could learn the norms, practices, and language of EER, as they became scholars. This history combined with the emergence of EER as a discipline with academic recognition; specific knowledge, frameworks, methodologies, and ways of conducting research; and particular emphasis and goals, creates a tension for building capacity to continue to develop EER and also include engineering education researchers who have not completed PhDs in an engineering education program. If EER is to continue to develop and emerge as a strong and robust discipline with high quality engineering education research, support mechanisms must be developed to both recognize outstanding EER scholars and develop the next generation of researchers in the field. The Five I’s framework comes from a larger project on supporting early career EER faculty in developing NSF CAREER proposals. Arguably, a NSF CAREER award is significant external recognition of EER that signals central membership in the community. The Five I’s were developed using collaborative inquiry, a tool and process to inform practice, with 19 EER CAREER awardees during a retreat in March 2019. The Five I’s include: Ideas, Integration, Impact, Identity, and Infrastructure. Ideas is researchers’ innovative and potentially transformative ideas that can make a significant contribution to EER. All NSF proposals are evaluated using the criteria of intellectual merit and broader impacts, and ideas aligned with these goals are essential for funding success. The integration of research and education is a specific additional consideration of CAREER proposals. Both education and research must inform one another in the proposal process. Demonstrating the impact of research is essential to convey why research should be funded. This impact is essential to address as it directly relates to the NSF criteria of broader impacts as well as why an individual is positioned to carry out that impact. This positioning is tied to identity or the particular research expertise from which a faculty member will be a leader in the field. Finally, infrastructure includes the people and physical resources from which a faculty member must draw to be successful. This framework has proven useful in helping early career faculty evaluate their readiness to apply for an NSF CAREER award or highlight the particular areas of their development that could be improved for future success. 
    more » « less
  5. An ongoing focus of engineering education research is on increasing the number of women in engineering. Previous studies have primarily focused on examining why the number of women enrolled in engineering colleges remains persistent low. In doing so, while we have gained better understanding of the challenges and barriers women encountered and factors that contribute to such negative experiences, it also, as some scholars have pointed out, has cast a deficit frame to such matters. In this study, we take on a positive stand where we focus on women undergraduate students who not only “stay” but also succeed in engineering programs (that is, our definition of thriving) as a way to locate the personal and institutional factors that facilitate such positive outcomes. Our initial pilot study involved two female engineering undergraduate students at an R1 university. Each student was interviewed three times. While each of the interviews in the sequence had slightly different focus, the overall goal was to understand the women’s autobiographic and educational experiences leading to their paths to engineering and participation in the engineering project teams. The inductive thematic analysis revealed several primary findings which subsequently played a major role in developing a codebook for the current study. Building upon what is learned from the pilot study, the current study uses a layered multi-case study design involving three institutions: a public/private Ivy League and statutory land-grand research university in the Northeast, a public land-grant research university in the Midwest, and a public land-grant research university in the Southwest which is also designated as MSI/HSI. In addition to the interview method, data collection also contains documents and artifacts. For the purpose of this paper, we zone in onto the data collected in the first interviews, known as the “life history” where we mainly learn about the women undergraduate participants’ personal-familial contexts that contribute their entry to majoring in engineering as identified by the women themselves. Preliminary findings indicate that: (1) our participants tend to have supportive families; (2) while all experienced gender biases, not everyone has formed a critical consciousness of sexism; and (3) being able to actually engage “doing” something and creating a product is key to the women’s finding joy in engineering and associating self with the field/profession. It is important to note that the second interviews are underway which focuses on the educational journey of the participants in relation to engineering identity development and project team experiences. The ultimate goal for the study is to develop a theoretical framework speaking to a multifaceted model of forces (micro as autobiographic, macro as institutional, and in-between or middle-level as team-based) in shaping women’s entry and advance in engineering programs – one that recognizes the variations in institutional type, resource availability, and structural and cultural characteristics and traditions in teams, but uses such differences to show possibilities of more versatile ways for diversifying pathways for women and other minoritized groups to thrive in engineering. 
    more » « less