Development of Engineering Education as a Rigorous Discipline: A Study of the Publication Patterns of Four Coalitions

Journal of Engineering Education, Jan 2007 by Borrego, Maura

Figure 2 is a plot of the total number of publications each year and the corresponding coalition funding periods. The overall trend was at a peak when all four coalitions were actively funded and had established networks and efforts. This distribution is the same for each coalition individually, with the peak occurring in year three, four, or five of funding. It is important to note that these data do not necessarily mean that the coalitions stopped publishing toward the end of the funding period; alternative interpretations include a decline in Web site updates, or a decline in faculty reporting publications to coalition personnel in the later years of coalition funding.

C. Qualitative Data: Faculty Interviews

Readers will see that the publication analysis alone raises many questions with respect to the motivation of the publication authors. To provide additional context for understanding the impact of the coalitions, selected coalition personnel reflected on the quantitative analysis results and described their perceptions of the work at the time and in light of recent calls for rigor. For the interview component of the study, the preliminary results of the publication analysis were shared with coalition leaders and first authors of the highest number of publications. The interview protocol consisted of four standard questions on rigor, dissemination, and reflection, but was semi-structured to allow for clarification. Human subjects research (IRB) approval was secured and each participant was assigned a pseudonym. Two forms of member-checking [36] were used to verify findings: once at the end of each interview and once before submitting this manuscript for peer review.

To understand multiple perspectives, one leader and two leading authors from each coalition were interviewed. Data analysis revealed two distinct perspectives which corresponded to leadership experience within the coalition. That is, a few of the participants selected as authors had high-level coalition leadership positions and tended to agree more with participants selected for the study as leaders. Although many of the coalition leaders now hold administrative positions, three of the author participants exhibiting leader perspectives never held university administration positions. Thus, the author believes this perspective was gained through coalition leadership experience. In their interviews, participants with leader perspectives discussed what was learned within the coalitions and the implications for the future of engineering education. Authors that were more campus-focused worked closely with reform efforts at their own institutions, and discussed more local changes and perceptions. In one extreme case of a leading author who was out of touch with overall coalition efforts, the author was barely aware that the coalition existed when contacted for an interview. (This author was not interviewed.) It is suspected that at least part of that coalition's publication database was populated by searching conference proceedings for all authors from coalition schools. For example, SUCCEED coalition personnel used a similar method to measure the influence of the coalition on campus climate and determine whether faculty would continue the work after funding ended.