REES AAEE special issue on engineering education research capability development: introduction by guest editors

ABSTRACT

Since the late 20th century, Engineering Education Research (EER) has been expanding globally as a field, although its identity varies across institutions and countries around the world. This diversity in how EER is experienced across contexts impacts how capability is developed, including identities, knowledge, practices, agendas, funding, and pathways. The theme of ‘Engineering Education Research Capability Development’ was explored in papers, presentations, and workshops throughout the jointly held 2021 Research in Engineering Education Symposium and Australasian Association for Engineering Education conference. This special issue presents a continuation of that theme. The papers collectively contribute to expanding global understanding of the field, with implications for future capacity building efforts in engineering education practice and research.

KEYWORDS:

• Engineering education research
• EER
• capability development

On behalf of the Research in Engineering Education Network (REEN) governing body, and in conjunction with the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE), we are pleased to present this special issue exploring engineering education research (EER) capability development.

REEN is an independent, international, and inclusive forum for quality research in engineering education that has a governing board with global representation. One of REEN’s key goals is to support engineering education research capacity building, particularly in regions that are newly developing. Mechanisms for furthering this aim include provisioning EER resources, and facilitating development workshops and knowledge-sharing events targeted to improving research skills.

REEN hosts a biannual conference, known as the Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES), that attracts international delegates participating in the engineering education field. In 2021, REES was held jointly with the AAEE Annual Conference between December 5 and 8. To accommodate disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, REES AAEE 2021 was uniquely run in a hybrid mode that facilitated participation across worldwide time zones. The face-to-face component was held at the University of Western Australia in Perth, Australia, closely coupled with online engagement options that ran both synchronously and asynchronously. We thank the organising team, led by conference chairs Professor Sally Male and Associate Professor Andrew Guzzomi, for hosting such a successful and inclusive conference amid significant travel disruptions and uncertainty.

The theme of ‘Engineering Education Research Capability Development’ was explored in papers, presentations, and workshops throughout the REES AAEE 2021 conference. This special issue presents a continuation of that theme. The call for papers invited conference participants and engineering education researchers globally to submit their work on engineering education research capacity building. We sought submissions that broadly interpreted the theme, which resulted in a diverse range of perspectives covering engineering education in both research and practice contexts. We thank the contributors for their commitment in developing their research for this special issue. We are also deeply grateful to the peer reviewers who provided thoughtful and considered feedback that improved the quality of the work published. The guest editors would also like to recognise the guidance of Australasian Journal of Engineering Education Editor-in-Chief Sally Male in bringing this special issue to publication.

Since the late 20^th century, EER has been expanding globally as a field (Jesiek, Newswander, and Borrego 2009; Matemba and Lloyd 2019; Pears et al. 2008; Valentine and Williams 2021; Williams and Neto 2018; Wint and Nyamapfene 2021), although its identity varies across institutions and countries around the world (Godfrey and Hadgraft 2009; Kumar et al. 2021). This diversity in how EER is experienced across contexts impacts how capability is developed, including identities, knowledge, practices, agendas, funding, and pathways.

Despite geographical differences in EER contexts, common themes can be observed. For example, those embarking on EER are often educators who share a strong sense of commitment to their students, as well as a desire to improve student outcomes and the engineering education ecosystem at large (Bezerra Rodrigues, Paul, and Seniuk Cicek 2021; Dart, Trad, and Blackmore 2021). As a result, many arrive on a path of improving their own teaching through research-based pedagogical techniques and scholarship of teaching and learning, which is discussed early in the field’s contemporary development (Richlin 2001; Streveler, Borrego, and Smith 2007; Wankat et al. 2002). As skills in technical engineering research are not always transferable to EER, given EER focuses on human subject research (Douglas, Koro-Ljungberg, and Borrego 2010; Gardner and Willey 2018), skills in conducting EER must be developed. These skills include applying theoretical frameworks (Johri 2010; Borrego 2007) and qualitative research methods (Case and Light, 2011; Borrego 2007).

Another common observation across EER contexts is the negative bias faced by those who transition from technical engineering research to EER (Dart, Trad, and Blackmore 2021; Gardner and Willey 2018), due to the EER ecosystem (including funding agencies and recognised publication outlets) being less robust and in some cases missing (Seniuk Cicek et al. 2019). This bias against EER as an undervalued field exists even in regions where it is most mature (Coso Strong et al. 2023). Fortunately, researchers in established regions typically have communities to help new entrants cope and eventually thrive. Capability building initiatives are thus especially vital for regions where EER is newly developing, both to support new community members in tackling the challenges they face, but also in providing the necessary training to engage in high-quality research. As such, having a collective discussion on the diverse approaches to capability development, including who engages with EER, how EER is undertaken, and the associated outcomes, will expand global understanding of the field and inform future capacity building efforts.

In this special issue, we present nine papers that uniquely explore the theme of EER capability development. A recurring thread across the manuscripts is recognition of the field’s relative infancy compared to traditional engineering disciplines, given that many researchers transition from aligned areas, which necessarily influences how EER capability is developed. The authors share experiences and make recommendations from four global contexts: Africa, Australia, Canada, and the United States. They utilise a variety of methods, which include interviews, pilot projects, comparative analysis, appreciative inquiry, critical reflection, and autoethnography. The authors draw upon several theories and conceptual frameworks, including resource dependency theory, institutional isomorphism, theories of practice, Bersteinian classification, boundary crossing, social capital, and the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework (TPACK). Together the authors put forward a range of approaches to capacity building. These include collaborative analysis of secondary data, research-informed policy development, mentoring, comparative work, and community-building, with some strategies manifesting across several of the articles.

In ‘Building Capacity in Engineering Education Research Through Collaborative Secondary Data Analysis’, Paretti et al. (2023) discuss secondary data analysis (SDA) as an approach for developing novice engineering education researchers’ skills in analysing qualitative data. The authors argue that collaborative SDA, which involves analysis of existing data from novel perspectives in collaboration with new researchers, is a valuable research capability development tool. The approach enables novice researchers to engage in qualitative analysis first-hand using real data, while being guided through the challenges inherent in the process by more experienced researchers. This has significant advantages for both the novice and experienced researchers including lowered time and cost barriers for data collection, new and expanded insights from fully exploring rich data sets, and potential for collaborations across institutions and countries. However, there are challenges associated with using SDA as a research capability development tool, particularly related to ethical considerations, data ownership, and ensuring data are appropriately treated especially when collected from historically marginalised groups. The paper explores these aspects in the context of two pilot projects conducted in the United States, which leads into actionable insights for others in applying SDA as a capability building approach.

In ‘Peer Reviewer Training to Build Capacity in Engineering Education Research’, Watts et al. (2023) report on the Peer Review Training project launched by the Journal of Engineering Education. This project was designed to develop the peer review skills of emerging engineering education researchers by forming triads of two less experienced ‘mentees’ and one more experienced ‘mentor’. The triads worked collaboratively to write reviews of EER manuscripts. The authors examined how mentees and mentors approached the task of reviewing these manuscripts, finding that mentors began the program with more shared schema than mentees, but that convergence between the groups improved through the program. The authors argue that professional development in peer reviewing, an area in which few researchers receive formal training, influences how reviewers come to understand and evaluate research quality.

In ‘Understanding Australian and United States Engineering Education Research (EER) Contexts’, Deters et al. (2023) explore how EER varies in structures and resource allocations between Australia and the United States. These distinctions impact how the scope and nature of EER practices translate in each country, as well as the ability to collaborate across contexts. The authors conduct a qualitative study to comparatively explore how eight researchers, who have experienced EER in both Australia and the United States, understand and navigate EER in these contexts. Overall, they demonstrate that the EER research environments in Australia and the United States are fundamentally different, comparing EER graduate study pathways, funding, and research drivers and aims. Understanding these differences can help to bridge EER collaborations between these countries.

In ‘Defining the capabilities required to teach engineering: Insights for achieving the Australian sector’s future vision’, Dart et al. (2023) argue that engineering education pedagogies must evolve to keep pace with global and technical advancements. However, teaching expertise is not valued in appointment and promotion criteria, which the authors argue is an impediment to advancing engineering education quality. Twenty-one engineering educators were interviewed for their understanding of the skills required for effective engineering education practice. Findings were mapped to the TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler 2006), which conceptualises effective educators as working at the intersection of technological, pedagogical, and disciplinary content knowledge. The authors contend that the Engineering 2035 Project (Burnett et al. 2021), which evaluated engineering education in Australia, missed key pedagogical skills in its recommendations for future workforce capabilities. These capabilities related to communicating engineering concepts, creating an empathetic learning environment, and subject coordination and management. The work provides additional detail to inform policy in recruitment and promotion of educators, professional development, and accreditation processes to drive improvement in engineering education.

In ‘Mid-Career Transitions into Engineering Education Research via Structured Mentorship Opportunities: Barriers and Perceptions’, Mirabelli et al. (2023) describe the journey of traditional engineering professors transitioning to research in engineering education in the United States. A funded, structured mentoring program serves as the catalyst for this transition. A thematic analysis with collaborative coding was utilised to analyse 8 mentor and 10 mentee semi-structured interviews. Identified themes were motivation for EER, institutional support and barriers, growth in knowledge, and integrating with EER culture. The article provides several valuable insights and practical steps to improve the experience of academics looking to transition to EER. These include recommendations for engineering departments to value social responsibility within engineering culture, to support and reward participation in conferences which promote EER and scholarship of teaching and learning, and most importantly, to revise promotion processes to equally reward EER. Recommendations for the EER community include to create and disseminate low-barrier-to-entry resources on EER methods, host training events targeted for those entering EER, and support the formation of research groups on EER.

In ‘Reflecting on a Community of Practice for Engineering Education Research Capacity in Africa: Who are We and Where are We Going?’, Matemba et al. (2023) apply appreciative inquiry to understand the Engineering Education Research Network in Africa (EERN-Africa). Six themes emerged around the value provided by the research community: capacity development, networking, emotional support, impact on professional identity, social and environmental impact, and breaking borders. Perceived opportunities for next steps highlighted several constraints and challenges, including time, size, geographical distance, language and communication, and contestation over EER. Findings reinforce that EER is not easy to learn and do, and that a network is necessary for continuous engagement. The authors conclude that the EERN-Africa community of practice needs to continue to promote the voice of African engineering education researchers and practitioners in each other’s contexts to foster a distinct, democratic, and inclusive African EER community.

In ‘Becoming an Engineering Education Researcher Through a Kaleidoscope of Practice Theory Perspectives’, Goldsmith et al. (2023) take an autoethnographic approach to narrate their research community’s journey into EER in the context of their affiliation with the Centre for Research in Engineering & Information Technology Education (CREITE). CREITE was founded at the University of Technology Sydney in 2016 and has grown to include membership from other local universities and beyond. The authors analyse their narratives through the lens of three theories: community of practice, Bourdieu’s theory of practice, and the theory of practice architectures. The study highlights the importance of EER communities serving as safe spaces for novice engineering educators to become socialised in EER. Although EER participation results in loss of capital from transitioning away from technical engineering research, this is balanced against the scientific and cultural capital gained from establishing a reputation in EER. The findings recognise that differences in the funding conditions, research approaches, and how research is valued contribute to enabling and constraining participation in both EER and technical engineering research fields. Overall, the transition into EER is mediated by community, as evidenced in CREITE.

In ‘Beyond Skills: Building Research Capacity through Cognitive Apprenticeship and Social Capital’, Jensen et al. (2023) explore mentoring in the context of the Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF) grant scheme funded by the National Science Foundation in the United States. The RIEF scheme involves novice engineering education researchers pairing with experienced engineering education researchers for mentoring throughout an EER project. Through interviews, the study seeks to understand how mentors help to develop novice engineering education researchers. Findings demonstrate that mentors play a critical role in facilitating professional development and guiding authentic engagement in the EER discipline. Mentor support went beyond teaching EER skills, with mentors helping mentees build their social networks, as well as overcome the challenges of feeling like a graduate student or an ‘imposter’ within the EER field. The authors relate their findings to actions for improving capacity building within structured mentoring programs.

Finally, in ‘Journeying into EER’, Seniuk Cicek, Paul, and Sheridan (2023) unpack the tensions between the engineering and education research fields, with a focus on how these tensions impact individuals transitioning to EER. They discuss the philosophical foundations of the engineering and education research fields and how EER is positioned at the intersection. This results in engineering education researchers engaging at the fringes of each parent discipline, negatively influencing their sense of belonging. The article provides insights for emerging engineering education researchers embarking upon the transition to EER, as well as for organisations working to sustainably build capability in EER.

It is clear looking across this special issue that a lack of structural support, including from institutions and funding bodies, serves as a common barrier to capability development for those engaging in EER. Authors’ suggestions for overcoming these structural challenges are largely found internal to the EER community, where novice-expert relationships or communities of practice are leveraged. These forms of capacity building support the development of research skills and increased ontological and epistemological understanding within community members. They also reduce cost and mitigate time barriers to research, offer ways to understand and foster global collaborations, and enable community building and thus belonging. However, we notice in these articles and in the literature more broadly, the onus often largely remains on the community to build capacity. Exploring avenues for external organisations to recognise the value and impact of EER will be important in further maturing the field. This can facilitate the establishment of more formal structures that can foster EER capability development in more robust and sustainable ways, which can ultimately be translated to improvements in engineering education practice.

The findings of these studies contribute to expanding global understanding of the field, with implications for future capacity building efforts in engineering education practice and research. We welcome you to this Special Issue and look forward to the seeding of new conversations and ideas to advance this exciting field.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sarah Dart

Sarah Dart is a Senior Lecturer working across both Learning and Teaching Unit and Faculty of Engineering at the Queensland University of Technology. Her impact on student learning has been recognised with citations from the Australian Awards for University Teaching, Australasian Association for Engineering Education, and Australian Mathematical Society. Her research interests are in engineering education, educational technology, and academic development.

Jillian Seniuk Cicek

Jillian Seniuk Cicek (she/her) is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Engineering Professional Practice and Engineering Education, University of Manitoba. She has a background in visual arts, creative writing, education, and holds an interdisciplinary PhD in engineering education.

Sohum Sohoni

Sohum Sohoni is a Professor and Program Director of Software Engineering at the Milwaukee School of Engineering. He serves as an Editor for the Journal of Engineering Education Transformations (JEET), on the Board of Directors of the Indo-Universal Collaboration for Engineering Education (IUCEE) and the Governing Board of the Research in Engineering Education Network (REEN).