Exploring the use of futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking among engineering education research collaborators

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Medha Dalal, Adam Carberry, Leanna Archambault
{"title":"Exploring the use of futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking among engineering education research collaborators","authors":"Medha Dalal,&nbsp;Adam Carberry,&nbsp;Leanna Archambault","doi":"10.1002/jee.20511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Multiple reports call for new ways of thinking to address challenges facing engineering education in the coming decades. Adopting these approaches first requires identifying and understanding existing ways of thinking among those engaging in engineering education research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>This study is motivated by the recently published Framework for Applying Ways of Thinking in Engineering Education Research (FAWTEER). The purpose is to determine if and how the four ways of thinking proposed under FAWTEER—futures, values, systems, and strategic—are practiced by engineering education research collaborators.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design/Method</h3>\n \n <p>Seven engineer-social scientist collaborator pairs across heterogeneous research projects were interviewed in dyads. Data were analyzed using an inductive coding approach that was informed by the framework and literature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Emergent findings provided evidence of collaborators' use of futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking, but the interpretations and relevance of a particular way of thinking varied depending on the project context. Proposal calls, organizational structures and policies, intentionality, and culture were identified as determinants that could foster or hinder the implementation of different ways of thinking.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Ways of thinking may be taken for granted or partly ignored in research practices despite their potential influence on innovation. This study highlights how futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking are enacted in engineering education research and suggests the need to further explore connections between ways of thinking and cultures that exist at the departmental, institutional, and disciplinary levels.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20511","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20511","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Multiple reports call for new ways of thinking to address challenges facing engineering education in the coming decades. Adopting these approaches first requires identifying and understanding existing ways of thinking among those engaging in engineering education research.

Purpose/Hypothesis

This study is motivated by the recently published Framework for Applying Ways of Thinking in Engineering Education Research (FAWTEER). The purpose is to determine if and how the four ways of thinking proposed under FAWTEER—futures, values, systems, and strategic—are practiced by engineering education research collaborators.

Design/Method

Seven engineer-social scientist collaborator pairs across heterogeneous research projects were interviewed in dyads. Data were analyzed using an inductive coding approach that was informed by the framework and literature.

Results

Emergent findings provided evidence of collaborators' use of futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking, but the interpretations and relevance of a particular way of thinking varied depending on the project context. Proposal calls, organizational structures and policies, intentionality, and culture were identified as determinants that could foster or hinder the implementation of different ways of thinking.

Conclusions

Ways of thinking may be taken for granted or partly ignored in research practices despite their potential influence on innovation. This study highlights how futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking are enacted in engineering education research and suggests the need to further explore connections between ways of thinking and cultures that exist at the departmental, institutional, and disciplinary levels.

Abstract Image

探索工程教育研究合作者对未来、价值观、系统和战略思维的使用
背景多份报告呼吁采用新的思维方式来应对未来几十年工程教育面临的挑战。采用这些方法首先需要识别和理解从事工程教育研究的人现有的思维方式。目的/假设本研究的动机是最近出版的《工程教育研究中应用思维方式框架》(FAWTEER)。其目的是确定工程教育研究合作者是否以及如何实践FAWTEER提出的四种思维方式——未来、价值观、系统和战略。设计/方法七对不同研究项目的工程师-社会科学家合作者进行了二人组访谈。根据框架和文献,采用归纳编码方法对数据进行分析。结果Emergent的研究结果为合作者使用未来、价值观、系统和战略思维提供了证据,但对特定思维方式的解释和相关性因项目背景而异。提案呼吁、组织结构和政策、意向性和文化被确定为可能促进或阻碍不同思维方式实施的决定因素。结论尽管思维方式对创新有潜在影响,但在研究实践中,思维方式可能被视为理所当然或部分被忽视。这项研究强调了未来、价值观、系统和战略思维是如何在工程教育研究中形成的,并建议有必要进一步探索部门、机构和学科层面的思维方式和文化之间的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信