Search for: All records

Engineering education research often uses interview-based studies to develop critical theoretical findings for transforming engineering education and practice. However, researchers are often left with few practical tools to hone the craft of interviewing, especially for unscripted interactions or moments that go beyond predefined protocols. Here, we introduce a process-oriented tool designed to refine researchers' interviewing capabilities. By focusing on adaptability and reflexivity, this tool aims to elevate the quality of evaluative discussions between novice researchers and their mentors. 

In this paper, we provide an overview of an NSF CAREER project where we seek to advance academic well-being by understanding how engineering faculty experience and reproduce experiences of professional shame. After conducting non-standardized interviews with engineering faculty (n = 23), we use interpretative phenomenological analysis to examine select individual cases (n = 10) that illustrate poignant individual experiences of professional shame. In this paper, we summarize three cases to demonstrate the complexity and function of professional shame in the interior world of faculty members. 

Prior methodological literature on conducting interviews emphasizes the importance of skill development in conducting interviews. However, in contrast to qualitative data analysis, there are few systematic processes in place to guide the interviewer into reflexivity about their role in the interview situation. Here, we present the interview quality reflection tool (IQRT) as a process that we developed from conducting and mentoring semi-structured and unstructured interviews focused on personal lived experiences. The IQRT prompts the interviewer to transcribe each interview question and reflect on how the spoken question served to advance experiential quality in the interview. We illustrate the IQRT itself before demonstrating how we authors used the process to examine experiential quality in three cases conducted in our prior research. Finally, we consider how the IQRT enables researchers to examine the interview situation as a whole, by increasing the self-awareness of the interviewer, and the parts, by commenting on the mechanics of constructing useful questions. 

Background The study of emotions in engineering education (EEE) has increased in recent years, but this emerging, multidisciplinary body of research is dispersed and not well consolidated. This paper reports on the first systematic review of EEE research and scholarship. Purpose The review aimed to critically assess how researchers and scholars in engineering education have conceptualized emotions and how those conceptualizations have been used to frame and conduct EEE research and scholarship. Scope/Method The systematic review followed the procedures of a configurative meta‐synthesis, mapping emotion theories and concepts, research purposes and methods, and citation patterns in the EEE literature. The review proceeded through five stages: (i) scoping and database searching; (ii) abstract screening, full text sifting, and full text review; (iii) pearling; (iv) scoping review, and (v) in‐depth analysis for the meta‐synthesis review. Two hundred and thirteen publications were included in the final analysis. Results The results show that the EEE literature has not extensively engaged with the wide range of conceptualizations of emotion available in the educational, psychological, and sociological literature. Further, the focus on emotion often seems to have been unintentional and of secondary importance in studies whose primary goals were to study other phenomena. Conclusions More research adopting intentional, theorized approaches to emotions will be crucial in further developing the field. To do justice to complex emotional phenomena in teaching and learning, future EEE research will also need to engage a broader range of conceptualizations of emotion and research methods, drawing on diverse disciplinary traditions. 

Engineering education research heavily relies on qualitative studies that utilize interview-based approaches. The quality and depth of knowledge derived from these studies depend heavily on the craft of conducting interviews, a facet often overlooked in prior work on qualitative methods. This special session aims to address this gap by guiding engineering education researchers in honing their interviewing skills for qualitative research. Participants will learn best practices for developing interview protocols, creating an accessible environment, and capturing high-quality data. Through case studies and hands-on activities, attendees will gain confidence in moderating conversations, improving data collection, and enhancing their overall skillset. This session provides an opportunity for researchers interested in qualitative research and scholarly educators to deepen their understanding of conducting meaningful interviews. By bridging the gap between the importance of qualitative studies and the need for skilled interviewers, we aim to contribute to the advancement of engineering education research. 

This methods paper presents the interview quality reflection tool (IQRT) to evaluate the quality of qualitative research interviews. Qualitative researchers commonly use semi-structured interviews that rely on the interviewers’ ability to improvise in real time based on the needs of the study. Given that interviewing involves numerous tacit skills that cannot be delineated by a simple written protocol, it is necessary that researchers develop interview competencies through practice and reflection. While prior literature on interviewing has often focused on developing interview protocols, we know little about how interviewers themselves may be trained to gather high-quality data. In this paper, we focus on how the IQRT may be used to guide the self-assessment of research interviews. We discuss how interviews are used in engineering education, how we developed and applied the IQRT, and how lessons learned through using this tool might lead to improved interviewing skills through careful examination of interview structure, content, and context within the mentoring process.