Engineering for Social Good? How Professional and Educational Experiences Inform Engineers' Solutions to Complex Problems

There have been a number of high-level calls for increased attention to contextual aspects of engineering work (including social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, and temporal considerations) as essential for ensuring the field can adequately address the complex problems of the modern world. However, the field of engineering – long grounded in a positivist tradition based on the primacy of technical considerations – has been slow to change. This qualitative study provided insight into how a persistent underemphasis on social and contextual aspects of engineering work in educational and professional settings is perpetuated, and how this underemphasis shapes the experiences of engineering undergraduate and graduate students and practitioners. Specifically, this study explored the aspects of engineering work emphasized in various local settings and the ways these informed engineers’ day-to-day practice as a potential mechanism that explains how a narrowly technical model of engineering work that largely neglects contextual considerations of engineering problems, is reproduced. In addition, the study highlighted how the aspects of engineering practice emphasized in study participants’ educational and professional settings (mis)aligned with their personal values and explored the implications of this misalignment for how these engineers viewed the field and their place within it. The study involved a two-phase design. Phase 1 was comprised of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 46 engineering students and professionals from a range of academic and personal backgrounds about their experiences in solving a complex engineering problem, included the types of factors participants attended to in solving these problems. Phase 2 included follow-up interviews with a subset of 18 participants. The second phase used a card-sort task to identify the practices participants perceived to be most and least valued in the educational and professional contexts in which they had engaged and interview questions to elicit the ways in which these emphases did and did not align with their personal values and priorities. Analyses leveraged social practice theory (from the work of Dorothy Holland, Jean Lave, and colleagues) to explore the ways meaning and practice are negotiated within local cultures and the implications for how people and their actions are recognized and rewarded within those contexts. Findings from this study highlight the following: 1) the extent to which day-to-day engineering education and work overlooked social and contextual considerations, despite these being stated institutional and national priorities in engineering and priorities of many students and practitioners in the study; 2) how the neglect of contextual aspects of engineering training and work contexts was reproduced in the practice of these engineers when solving a complex problem; and 3) how the practices emphasized within engineering contexts varyingly aligned with participants’ own values and the consequences of this (mis)alignment for their sense of their fit in the field. These findings have implications for both the ability of engineers to understand and meet the needs of a complex global society as well as for the field’s ability to attract and retain a diverse engineering workforce. Specific recommendations based on this study’s findings include the importance of integrating contextual considerations throughout the core engineering curriculum and providing faculty and instructors the training and resources necessary to do so.PHDHigher EducationUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163112/1/emosy_1.pd

Teaching Creative Process across Disciplines

While there is great interest in higher education about teaching creative process, there have been relatively few studies of how courses can facilitate the development of creative skills. The goal of this study was to document how college instructors structure courses intended to develop students’ creative processes. The study data included interviews from instructors and students using a critical case sample of fifteen courses at a single U.S. University. A qualitative analysis of the transcripts yielded a set of 14 pedagogical elements appearing across courses. Common elements were open‐ended projects and skill‐building activities, and less frequently, risk taking experiences and self‐reflection. The sample included undergraduate courses in engineering, education, the liberal arts, and the arts, and the elements observed were often shared across courses from different disciplines. These findings provide a diverse set of pedagogical approaches and opportunities for building creative process skills within undergraduate courses.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148345/1/jocb158.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148345/2/jocb158_am.pd

Drivers of research topic selection for engineering doctoral students

In this study, we explored engineering doctoral students’ motivations for selecting their research topic. The extent to whichindividuals are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated and the autonomy they have to make their own decisions hasimplications for their enjoyment of and success at a particular task. Given the importance of motivation, we sought toaddress a gap in the understanding of how doctoral students in engineering decide on a particular problem to study. Ourfindings are based on interviews with students with varying past educational and professional experiences that enable us tocapture a wide range of motivations for engineering PhD students’ research subject decisions. We found that the majorityof students interviewed reported some form of extrinsic motivation guiding their decision, though these students varied intheir autonomy to select their own topic. Of the students who reported intrinsic motivations for their research topicselection, many had extensive prior work experience that informed their topic choice. Funding played a major role inshaping students’ project decisions, which is reflective of the scale and expense of much of engineering work. However, ourfindings suggest there are a number of opportunities for students to identify research topics in which they personallyperceive as important and interesting

Engineering PhD Returners and Direct‐Pathway Students: Comparing Expectancy, Value, and Cost

BackgroundProfessionals who pursue a doctorate after significant post‐baccalaureate work experience, a group we refer to as returners, represent an important but understudied group of engineering doctoral students. Returners are well situated to leverage their applied work experiences in their advanced engineering training.Purpose/HypothesisWe drew on results from the Graduate Student Experiences and Motivations Survey to explore the dimensionality of our scales measuring value and cost constructs. We used these scales, as well as measures of student expectancy of success, to compare returners with direct‐pathway students.Design/MethodWe surveyed 179 returners and 297 direct‐pathway domestic engineering doctoral students. We first conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis on our cost and value measures. We then used both Ordinary Least Squares and Ordinal Regression Model analyses to assess the relationships of various student characteristics and experiences (including returner status) with student expectancy of success and the emergent cost and values factors associated with doctoral study in engineering.ResultsFactor analysis revealed three categories of values (interest, attainment, and career utility) that were largely consistent with those in Eccles’ expectancy‐value framework. A similar analysis identified three categories of costs (balance, financial, and academic) associated with pursuing a PhD. Returners felt significantly less confident in their ability to complete their degrees prior to enrolling and perceived higher levels of all cost types than direct‐pathway students.ConclusionsGiven the differences between returning and direct‐pathway students, it is important to consider how universities might best recruit and retain returners. Tracking returner status could be critical in better supporting these students.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140046/1/jee20182.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140046/2/jee20182_am.pd

Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the ways engineering doctoral students draw on prior experiences to inform their doctoral research. This study includes the experiences of “returners” – those who have worked as practitioners for five or more years before entering a PhD program – who have distinct experiences from “direct-pathway students,” which may inform how they engage in doctoral research. This study also explores the traits that distinguish varying levels of sophistication in the ways PhD students think about the research process and how prior experience may contribute. Design/methodology/approach This study draws on interview data from 52 returning and direct-pathway engineering doctoral students. A thematic analysis of this interview data highlights the primary ways participants’ prior professional, academic and life experiences inform their doctoral research. In addition, the authors conducted an iterative analysis process to sort participants’ responses about their management of a hypothetical research scenario into emergent categories of research thinking sophistication to understand what characterizes varying levels of sophistication in research thinking and explore how experience may contribute. Findings Participants identified past experiences as shaping their research, related to how they identify a research problem, considering what needs to and can be done to address the problem, identifying an appropriate research approach, managing unexpected challenges, responding to critical feedback, determining their comfort taking risks and using intuition to lead a project. Originality/value Outcomes of this research can inform how graduate education supports students throughout their degree by identifying key experiences that may contribute to students’ research approaches. </jats:sec