skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: Work in Progress: Novel Ethnographic Approaches for Investigating Engineering Practice
This work-in-progress paper reports on the early phases of an exploratory research project involving use of innovative approaches to collecting, analyzing, and archiving empirical data related to engineering practice. More specifically, our project takes an ethnographic approach to studying technical teams at multiple field sites representing multiple industry sectors using novel methods such as agile ethnography, trace ethnography, and network ethnography. In contrast to traditional ethnographic studies that may involve long periods of participant observation, these new approaches often involve less intensive fieldwork, and are instead designed around more targeted research questions and other sources of evidence (e.g., social network data, documentary traces in digital systems). These methods are new and evolving, and therefore have scarcely been used to study engineering practice. Thus, one major goal of the paper is to introduce the proposed methods to the engineering education research community. In doing so, we explore the potential for these methods to generate research findings more rapidly and with a greater focus on specific problems and questions of interest to both industry and researchers. Such methods have gained traction in workplace settings precisely due to such advantages, especially in software engineering and related fields where work is already very digital and distributed in character. A second major goal of this paper is to give a brief progress report on the early stages of our study, including the initial groundwork carried out to gain access to, and begin collecting data at, multiple field sites. We expect this paper will appeal to scholars who study engineering practice, and those who are interested in contemporary innovations in ethnographic and other qualitative research methods.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1939272
NSF-PAR ID:
10204875
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the 2021 American Society of Engineering Education Virtual Annual Conference)
    null (Ed.)
    Amidst growing concerns about a lack of attention to ethics in engineering education and professional practice, a variety of formal course-based interventions and informal or extracurricular programs have been created to improve the social and ethical commitments of engineering graduates. To supplement the formal and informal ethics education received as undergraduate students, engineering professionals often also participate in workplace training and professional development activities on ethics, compliance, and related topics. Despite this preparation, there is growing evidence to suggest that technical professionals are often challenged to navigate ethical situations and dilemmas. Some prior research has focused on assessing the impacts of a variety of learning experiences on students’ understandings of ethics and social responsibility, including the PIs’ prior NSF-funded CCE STEM study which followed engineering students through the four years of their undergraduate studies using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. This prior project explored how the students’ views on these topics changed across demographic groups, over time, between institutions, and due to specific interventions. Yet, there has been little longitudinal research on how these views and perceptions change (or do not change) among engineers during the school-to-work transition. Furthermore, there has been little exploration of how these views are influenced by the professional contexts in which these engineers work, including cultures and norms prevalent in different technical fields, organizations, and industry sectors. This NSF-supported Ethical and Responsible Research (ER2) study responds to these gaps in the literature by asking: RQ1) How do perceptions of ethics and social responsibility change in the transition from undergraduate engineering degree programs to the workplace (or graduate studies), and how are these perceptions shaped or influenced?, and RQ2) How do perceptions of ethics and social responsibility vary depending on a given individual’s engineering discipline/background and current professional setting? This paper gives an overview of the research project, describing in particular the longitudinal, mixed-methods study design which will involve collecting and analyzing data from a large sample of early career engineers. More specifically, we will present the proposed study contexts, timeline, target subject populations, and procedures for quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. We will also describe how this study leverages our prior project, thereby allowing unique longitudinal comparisons that span participants’ years as an engineering undergraduate student to their time as an early-career professional. Through this project, we aim to better understand how early career engineers’ perceptions of social and ethical responsibility are shaped by their prior experiences and current professional contexts. This paper will likely be of particular interest to scholars who teach or research engineering ethics, social responsibility, and professional practice. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ( , 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))
    Full Paper: Digital transformations are reshaping engineering practices with implications for conducting engineering education research. Given the paucity of discussion of digital methods within engineering education research, we believe it is important to examine and present to the community an overview of how digital technology is changing research practices. In this paper we focus on digital ethnography as it has implications for studies of technical education and work, which necessarily involve using, and observing how others employ digital data sources, tools, systems, methods, etc. In this paper we report preliminary results from an in-depth literature search and review. To select the papers for the review, we first examined prior meta-review papers that identified new ethnographic methods appropriate for digital contexts (e.g., network ethnography, trace ethnography, rapid ethnography, connective ethnography, focused ethnography, etc.). We then used these as keywords to search for papers that were representative of these methods and selected the 100 most cited papers from this corpus, with further screening resulting in a final collection of 91 papers. We then conducted free/open coding of the articles followed by thematic coding to identify six categories and dived deeper into one of the categories, focused on different approaches to ethnography, to further explore the various types of ethnographic methods mentioned in the collected literature. We close by discussing how emerging techniques in ethnographic field research can be applied to engineering education research with engineering work practices as an exemplar. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ( , Gateways)
    Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/ partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peerreviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/ or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ( , ASEE Annual Conference proceedings)
    Given the infancy of engineering education as an established field and the recent increase in early career faculty aligning themselves with the discipline, it is imperative that the community better understand the experiences of these new faculty members. As a result, we will be able to enhance national efforts to train and develop faculty prepared to drive change in engineering education. Accordingly, this two-phased study will investigate how institutional context influences the agency of our research team and other early career engineering education faculty as it relates to facilitating change in engineering education. Faculty agency is important because faculty play a central role in making change, and there is a need to further understand the factors that influence their ability to do so. This work leverages collaborative inquiry and collaborative autoethnography to explore the lived experiences of our research team, which consists of six engineering education faculty with different roles and responsibilities who are positioned in varied settings at different institutions. We represent diverse perspectives with regard to our goals, visions, and training in engineering education. This project officially started in May 2017; however, we have been collecting data since August 2015. Our poster will present a summary of our current progress, which includes the use of the Q3 Research Quality Workshop to guide our plans for data collection and analysis. This was important to our work, because in Phase I of our study we are combining elements from auto ethnography and collaborative inquiry to explore our research questions. In addition to our study’s methodological impact, the results will provide the engineering education community with evidence-based insights on conditions that facilitate change efforts by early career engineering education faculty. By sharing our findings with current and developing engineering education graduate programs, we will enable them to make programmatic changes to benefit future faculty. These findings also provide a mechanism for divisions within the American Society of Engineering Education to develop programming and resources to support the sustained success of their members. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ( , American Society for Engineering Education: Proceedings of the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition)
    Given the infancy of engineering education as an established field and the recent increase in early career faculty aligning themselves with the discipline, it is imperative that the community better understand the experiences of these new faculty members. As a result, we will be able to enhance national efforts to train and develop faculty prepared to drive change in engineering education. Accordingly, this two-phased study will investigate how institutional context influences the agency of our research team and other early career engineering education faculty as it relates to facilitating change in engineering education. Faculty agency is important because faculty play a central role in making change, and there is a need to further understand the factors that influence their ability to do so. This work leverages collaborative inquiry and collaborative autoethnography to explore the lived experiences of our research team, which consists of six engineering education faculty with different roles and responsibilities who are positioned in varied settings at different institutions. We represent diverse perspectives with regard to our goals, visions, and training in engineering education. This project officially started in May 2017; however, we have been collecting data since August 2015. Our poster will present a summary of our current progress, which includes the use of the Q3 Research Quality Workshop to guide our plans for data collection and analysis. This was important to our work, because in Phase I of our study we are combining elements from auto ethnography and collaborative inquiry to explore our research questions. In addition to our study’s methodological impact, the results will provide the engineering education community with evidence-based insights on conditions that facilitate change efforts by early career engineering education faculty. By sharing our findings with current and developing engineering education graduate programs, we will enable them to make programmatic changes to benefit future faculty. These findings also provide a mechanism for divisions within the American Society of Engineering Education to develop programming and resources to support the sustained success of their members. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email