![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The realities of engineering practice remain opaque and constantly evolving, often leaving graduates underprepared for the workplace and employers dissatisfied with new employees. In this study we shed new empirical light on the lived working experiences of early career engineers in large manufacturing firms. We adopt boundary spanning as the primary framework for our research given growing recognition of its importance in the workplace and potential utility for conceptualizing engineering practice. We specifically address the research question: What kinds of boundary spanning do early career engineers experience in their daily work? Our study is based on interviews with 23 early career engineers analyzed using a thematic analysis approach to code for boundary spanning and other related themes. We then wrote third-person constructed narratives to holistically portray the day-to-day work of three participants. Our findings illustrate how engineers frequently encounter many different types of boundaries and perform specific boundary spanning activities. The narratives also illuminate early career progression, including evidence of increasing leadership responsibilities as engineers navigate evolving job role demands and organizational expectations. We conclude with directions for future research, and discuss how our findings speak to ongoing efforts to reimagine professional practice while improving engineering education and professional development.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1254323 and 1939272. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the study participants who so generously shared their time and perspectives with us, along with larger research team that assisted with collecting and analyzing data for this project. We especially note assistance from Scott Campbell, Neha Choudhary, Andrea Mazzurco, and Matthew Scheidt. Finally, we offer thanks to the reviewers whose feedback considerably improved the final version of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Brunhaver et al., “Bridging the Gaps Between Engineering Education and Practice.”
2 Huff et al., “Identity in Engineering Adulthood.”
3 Korte, “How Newcomers Learn the Social Norms of an Organization.”
4 Faulkner, “Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures I”; Faulkner, “Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures II”; Hill, Corbett, and St. Rose, Why so Few?; Ross, “A Unicorn's Tale.” We use the term ‘minoritized’ to make explicit the active structural dynamics that force people into groups and enable discrimination. See Smith, “Minority versus Minoritized.”
5 World Economic Forum (WEF), The Future of Jobs Report 2018.
6 Lund et al., “The Future of Work After COVID-19.”
7 Stevens, Johri, and O’Conner, “Professional Engineering Work.”
8 With some notable exceptions, e.g. Trevelyan, The Making of an Expert Engineer, Appendix 4.
9 National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.
10 Gonzalez, “Is the Engineering Profession Still a ‘Good’ Job?.”
11 Jesiek et al., “Becoming Boundary Spanners in Engineering.”
12 Hanneman and Gardner, “Under the Economic Turmoil a Skills Gap Simmers”; Johri, “Boundary Spanning Knowledge Broker”; Lynn and Salzmann, “Collaborative Advantage.”
13 Cohen, Rossmann, and Sanford Bernhardt, “Introducing Engineering as a Socio-technical Process”; Jesiek et al., “Toward a Typology of the Sociotechnical.”
14 While we do not adopt a fully performative approach to analyzing practice in this paper, we take inspiration from related works such as Hodgson, “‘Putting on a Professional Performance’”; Faulkner, “Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures I”; Faulkner, “Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures II.”
15 Williams and Figueiredo, “Engineering Practice as an Emerging Field of Inquiry.”
16 For example, see Heywood, “The Education of Professional Mechanical Engineers.”
17 Downey and Lucena, “Engineering Studies”; Downey, “What Is Engineering Studies For?”
18 Stevens, Johri, and O’Conner, “Professional Engineering Work,” 120.
19 Ibid.
20 Bucciarelli, Designing Engineers.
21 Trevelyan, “Reconstructing Engineering From Practice”; Trevelyan, The Making of an Expert Engineer; Williams and Figueiredo, “Finding Workable Solutions.”
22 Trevelyan, “Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice.”
23 Brunhaver et al., “Bridging the Gaps Between Engineering Education and Practice.”
24 Ibid., 149–50.
25 Martin et al., “Engineering Graduates’ Perceptions of How Well They Were Prepared.”
26 Huff et al., “Identity in Engineering Adulthood.”
27 Korte, “How Newcomers Learn the Social Norms of an Organization”; Korte and Li, “Exploring the Organizational Socialization of Engineers in Taiwan”; Korte, Brunhaver, and Sheppard, “(Mis)Interpretations of Organizational Socialization.”
28 Johri, “Boundary Spanning Knowledge Broker.”
29 Jesiek et al., “Boundary Spanning and Engineering.”
30 Jesiek et al., “Boundary Spanning and Engineering.” For example, see Hsiao, Tsai, and Lee, “Collaborative Knowing.”
31 Jesiek et al., “Boundary Spanning and Engineering.”
32 Guba and Lincoln, “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.”
33 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, Ch. 3.
34 Ibid.
35 Pawley, “Shifting the ‘Default’.”
36 Frank, Ethnographic Interviewing for Teacher Preparation and Staff Development.
37 Webster and Mertova, Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method.
38 Jesiek, Trellinger, and Mazzurco, “Becoming Boundary Spanning Engineers”; Jesiek et al., “Boundary Spanning and Engineering.”
39 Boyatzis, Transforming Qualitative Information; Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis.”
40 Jesiek et al., “Boundary Spanning and Engineering.”
41 Jesiek, Trellinger, and Nittala, “Closing the Practice Gap.”
42 With some notable exceptions, such as Gerwitz and Paretti, “Becoming After College.”
43 Jesiek, Trellinger, and Mazzurco, “Becoming Boundary Spanning Engineers”; Jesiek, Trellinger, and Nittala, “Closing the Practice Gap.”
44 Kellam, Gerow, and Walther, “Narrative Analysis in Engineering Education Research.”
45 Gerwitz and Paretti, “Becoming After College.”
46 Coulter and Smith, “The Construction Zone,” 581.
47 Jesiek, Trellinger, and Nittala, “Closing the Practice Gap”; Jesiek et al., “Toward a Typology of the Socioetechnical.”
48 Beddoes, “Examining Privilege in Engineering Socialization.”
49 For an expanded discussion of the boundary object concept as it relates to this particular example, see Jesiek et al., “Toward a Typology of the Sociotechnical.”
50 For a more detailed account, see Jesiek et al., “Toward a Typology of the Sociotechnical.”
51 For more on boundary characteristics such as permeability and flexibility, see Fellows and Liu, “Managing Organizational Interfaces”; For more on interactions across multiple boundaries, see Espinosa et al., “Team Boundary Issues.”
52 Hanneman and Gardner, “Under the Economic Turmoil a Skills Gap Simmers”; Hsiao, Tsai, and Lee, “Collaborative Knowing”; Johri, “Boundary Spanning Knowledge Broker”; Lynn and Salzmann, “Collaborative Advantage.”
53 Trevelyan, “Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice.”
54 Trevelyan and Tilli, “Longitudinal Study of Australian Engineering Graduates,” 10; see also Williams and Figueiredo, “Finding Workable Solutions.”
55 Stevens, Johri, and O’Connor, “Professional Engineering Work”; Jesiek et al., “Toward a Typology of the Sociotechnical.”
56 Lyons, Anselmo, and Kuller, “Engineering Education for Competitive International Economy”; Wilde, “An Investigative Study of the Difficulties Experienced.”
57 Trevelyan, “Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice”; Trevelyan, The Making of an Expert Engineer, Ch. 4.
58 Wickenden as quoted in Noble, America by Design, 49.
59 Trevelyan and Williams, “Identifying Value in the Engineering Enterprise.”
60 Williams, Phillips, and Hall, Double Jeopardy?.
61 Ross, “A Unicorn's Tale.”
62 Jesiek et al., “Interns in the Wild.”
63 Radcliffe, “Innovation as a Meta-Attribute for Graduate Engineers.”
64 Bowman and Farr, “Embedding Leadership in Civil Engineering Education”; Howard, “From Engineer to Engineering Manager.”
65 For example, on the engineer to manager transition see Nittala, “Lived Experiences of Recently Transitioned Engineering Managers.”