Methodology discourses as boundary work in the construction of engineering education

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 293-312

  Beddoes, Kacey ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

academic capital; boundary work; disciplinary development; engineering education research; methodology discourses; rigor

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; METHODOLOGY; STANDARD;

ENGINEERING; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84896805046     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312713510431     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Amsterdamska O.Demarcating epidemiology.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2005;30 (1): 17-51.
2. Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) (2009) Bibliography. Available at: http://aaee-scholar.pbworks.com/w/page/1177020/Bibliography (accessed 19 August 2013).
3. AAEE Newsletter. 2010;:.
4. Banerjee D,Pawley AL. Pesented at The American Society for engineering education annual conference; 2010Louisville, KY; 2010.
5. Beddoes K.Feminist scholarship in engineering education: Challenges and tensions.Engineering Studies. 2012;4 (3): 205-232.
6. Beddoes K.Feminist methodologies and engineering education research.European Journal of Engineering Education. 2013;38 (1): 107-118.
7. Beddoes K.Using peer reviews to examine the micropolitics and disciplinary development of engineering education: A case study.Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. in press;35 (3):.
8. Benson LC,Becker K,Cooper MM,Griffin OH,Smith KA.Engineering education: Departments, degrees and directions.International Journal of Engineering Education. 2010;26 (5): 1042-1048.
9. Biglan A.The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1973;57 (3): 195-203.
10. Borrego M.Development of engineering education as a rigorous discipline: A study of the publication patterns of four coalitions.Journal of Engineering Education. 2007;96 (1): 5-18.
11. Borrego M,Bernhard J.The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry.Journal of Engineering Education. 2011;100 (1): 14-47.
12. Borrego M,Douglas EP,Amelink CT.Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education.Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;98 (1): 53-66.
13. Borrego M,Froyd J,Knight D.Accelerating emergence of engineering education via the International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (ICREE).Journal of Engineering Education. 2007;96 (4): 281-282.
14. Borrego M,Froyd JE,Hall TS.Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments.Journal of Engineering Education. 2010;99 (3): 185-207.
15. Borrego M,Streveler RA,Miller RL,Smith KA.A new paradigm for a new field: Communicating representations of engineering education research.Journal of Engineering Education. 2008;97 (2): 147-162.
16. Bourdieu PDistinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1984:.
17. Boyer ELScholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1990:.
18. Burri RV.Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology.Social Studies of Science. 2008;38 (1): 35-62.
19. Case J,Light G.Emerging methodologies in engineering education research.Journal of Engineering Education. 2011;100 (1): 186-210.
20. CLEERHUB (2009) Collaboratory for engineering education research. Available at: http://cleerhub.org/ (accessed 19 August 2013).
21. Douglas EP,Koro-Ljungberg M,Borrego M.Challenges and promises of overcoming epistemological and methodological partiality: Advancing engineering education through acceptance of diverse ways of knowing.European Journal of Engineering Education. 2010;35 (3): 247-257.
22. Downey G.What is engineering studies for? Dominant practices and scalable scholarship.Engineering Studies. 2009;1 (1): 55-76.
23. Eddy MD.Academic capital, postgraduate research and British universities: A Bourdieu inspired reflection.Discourse: Learning and Teaching in Philosophical and Religious Studies. 2006;6 (1): 211-223.
24. Evans R.Introduction: Demarcation socialized: Constructing boundaries and recognizing difference.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2005;30 (1): 3-16.
25. Feyerabend PAgainst Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New York: Verso; 1993:.
26. Fuhrman ER,Oehler K.Discourse analysis and reflexivity.Social Studies of Science. 1986;16 (2): 293-307.
27. Gieryn TFCultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1999:.
28. Gilbert GN,Mulkay MOpening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1984:.
29. Feminism and Methodology. Harding S, ed. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1987:.
30. Harding SFeminist Perspectives on Social Research. Hesse-Biber SNYaiser ML, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004:39-64.
31. Harding SScience and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press; 2006:.
32. Harding S,Norberg K.New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction.Signs. 2005;30 (4): 2009-2015.
33. Hart J.Women and feminism in higher education scholarship: An analysis of three core journals.Journal of Higher Education. 2006;77 (1): 40-61.
34. Huband F,Smith K,Streveler RARigorous research in engineering education: Creating a community of practice. NSF DUE Grant #0341127. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2004:.
35. JamiesonLHLohmannJR (2009) Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education. Available at: http://www.asee.org/about-us/the-organization/advisory-committees/CCSSIE/CCSSIEE_Phase1Report_June2009.pdf (accessed 19 August 2013).
36. Jawitz J,Case J.Communicating your findings in engineering education: The value of making your theoretical perspective explicit.European Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;34 (2): 149-154.
37. JesiekBKBeddoesK (2013) Diversity in engineering (DinE) bibliography. Available at: http://inesweb.org/dine/ (accessed 19 August 2013).
38. Jesiek BK,Borrego M,Beddoes K.Advancing Global Capacity for Engineering Education Research (AGCEER): Relating research to practice, policy, and industry.Journal of Engineering Education. 2010;99 (2): 107-119.
39. Jesiek BK,Borrego M,Beddoes K,Hurtado M,Rajendran P,Sangam D.Mapping global trends in engineering education research, 2005-2008.International Journal of Engineering Education. 2011;27 (1): 77-90.
40. Jesiek BK,Newswander LK,Borrego M.Engineering education research: Discipline, Community, or Field?.Journal of Engineering Education. 2009;98 (1): 39-52.
41. The Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. Johri AOlds BM, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; in press:.
42. JEE strategic plan, 2005-2010: Advancing engineering education research worldwide.Journal of Engineering Education. 2005;94 (3): 283-284.
43. Kinchy AJ,Kleinman DL.Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics.Social Studies of Science. 2003;33 (6): 869-896.
44. Koro-Ljungberg M,Douglas EP.State of qualitative research in engineering education: Meta-analysis of JEE articles, 2005-2006.Journal of Engineering Education. 2008;97 (2): 163-175.
45. Law JAfter Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge; 2004:.
46. Leydens JA,Moskal BM,Pavelich MJ.Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education.Journal of Engineering Education. 2004;93 (1): 65-72.
47. Lodahl JB,Gordon G.The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments.American Sociological Review. 1972;37 (1): 57-72.
48. Lohmann JR. Presented at The American Society for Engineering Education annual conference; 2008Pittsburgh, PA; 2008.
49. Longino HEScience as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990:.
50. Transforming the Disciplines: A Women's Studies Primer. MacNabb ELCherry MJPopham SLPrys RP, ed. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press; 2001:.
51. MadhavanKXianHVorvoreanuMJesiekBJohriAWangA. (2010) Interactive Knowledge Networks for Engineering Education Research (iKNEER). Available at: http://www.ikneer.org (accessed 19 August 2013).
52. Mercer D.Scientific method discourses in the construction of 'EMF Science': Interests, resources and rhetoric in submissions to a public inquiry.Social Studies of Science. 2002;32 (2): 205-233.
53. Michael M.Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 1992;17 (3): 313-333.
54. NNEER (2013) Nordic network in engineering education research. Available at: http://www.didaktik.itn.liu.se/nneer.html (accessed 19 August 2013).
55. Paretti MC.Teaching communication in capstone design: The role of the instructor in situated learning.Journal of Engineering Education. 2008;97 (4): 491-503.
56. Porter TMTrust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1995:.
57. REEN (2013) Research in engineering education network. Available at: http://grou.ps/reen/home (accessed 19 August 2013).
58. Richards E,Schuster J.The feminine method as myth and accounting resource: A challenge to gender studies and social studies of science.Social Studies of Science. 1989;19 (4): 697-720.
59. Riley DEngineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers; 2008:.
60. Riley D. Presented at The American Society for Engineering Education annual conference; 2013Atlanta, GA; 2013.
61. Riley D,Henry V,Leighton LC.What makes faculty adopt or resist change in engineering education?. Presented at The American Society for Engineering Education annual conference; 2013Atlanta, GA; 2013.
62. Riley NE.Challenging demography: Contributions from feminist theory.Sociological Forum. 1999;14 (3): 369-397.
63. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University (2013) Graduate program. Available at: https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/Academics/Graduate (accessed 19 August 2013).
64. Schuster JA.Methodologies as mythic structures: A preface to the future historiography of method.Metascience. 1984;1 (2): 15-36.
65. Schuster JA,Yeo RRThe Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method. Schuster JAYeo RR, ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1986:ix-xxxvii.
66. SEFI (2013) Working group on engineering education research. Available at: http://www.sefi.be/?page_id=1192 (accessed 19 August 2013).
67. Sherif CWFeminism and Methodology. Harding S, ed. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1987:37-56.
68. Slaton AERace, Rigor, and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering: The History of an Occupational Color Line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2010:.
69. Sprague JFeminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers: Bridging Differences. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press; 2005:.
70. Stacey J,Thorne B.The missing feminist revolution in sociology.Social Problems. 1985;32 (4): 301-316.
71. Stanley EKnowing Feminisms: On Academic Borders, Territories and Tribes. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1997:.
72. The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others. Steinmetz G, ed. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2005:.
73. StrevelerRA (2012) High quality engineering education research (EER): Key elements and persistent misconceptions. Presented at The Australasian Association for Engineering Education annual conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 3-5 December. Available at: https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/aaee-2012-keynote-streveler.pdf (accessed 19 August 2013).
74. Streveler RA,Smith KA.Guest editorial: Conducting rigorous research in engineering education.Journal of Engineering Education. 2006;95 (2): 103-105.
75. Streveler RA,Borrego M,Smith KATo Improve the Academy. Robertson DRNilson LB, ed. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing; 2007:139-149.
76. Streveler RA,Smith K,Miller R. Presented at The American Society for Engineering Education annual conference; 2005Portland, OR; 2005.
77. Timmermans SHandbook of Medical Sociology. Bird CEConrad PFremont AMTimmermans S, ed. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press; 2010:309-323.
78. Timmermans S,Berg MThe Gold Standard: The Challenge of Evidence-Based Medicine and Standardization in Health Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 2003:.
79. Vincenti WG,Bloor D.Boundaries, contingencies and rigor: Thoughts on mathematics prompted by a case study in transonic aerodynamics.Social Studies of Science. 2003;33 (4): 469-507.
80. Walden SE,Foor CE.'What's to keep you from dropping out?' Student immigration into and within engineering.Journal of Engineering Education. 2008;97 (2): 191-205.
81. Waller AA. Presented at The Frontiers in Education (FIE) annual conference; 2005Indianapolis, IN; 2005.
82. Walther JCAREER: A quality framework for interpretive engineering education research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2012:.
83. WaltherJ (2013) The 2013 Qualifying Qualitative Research Quality (Q3) workshop. Available at: http://www.georgiacenter.uga.edu/uga-hotel/conferences-events/register/q3-workshop (accessed 19 August 2013).