Productive tensions? Analyzing the arguments made about the field of engineering education research

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundA body of literature has arisen analyzing and legitimating the emerging field of engineering education research (EER). Using concepts from the sociology of knowledge, EER can be described as a region because it has relationships both to other academic fields and to its field of practice. Of interest is the strength of boundaries between these fields, described by the sociologist Bernstein's concept of classification.Purpose/HypothesisThis study addresses the research questions: (1) How, when and by whom are arguments made to strengthen or weaken the boundaries, first between EER and other academic fields and second between EER and engineering teaching? (2) How do these arguments change across time and national contexts?Design/MethodDrawing on a survey of 21 EER experts, this sociological discourse analysis focuses on a purposive dataset of 17 papers from 2000 to 2020.ResultsThe study identified three main arguments in this literature, favoring: (1) strong classification (a singular in sociological terms); (2a) a region linked outward to teaching practice; and (2b) a region linked inward to other social science disciplines.ConclusionsThe argument for EER as a strongly classified field has served value in establishing legitimacy and associated resources in some contexts but has not yet delivered a unique knowledge base for such legitimation. An alternative framing holds together the productive tension between two directions in which EER as a region can face: Looking inward to parent disciplines for theoretical and methodological direction and looking outward to the world of practice for meaningful problems to guide its studies.