Dilemmas in Framing Research Studies in Engineering Education

There has been considerable debate about the need for more empirical, evidence based studies of the impact of various interventions and practices in engineering education. A number of resources including workshops to guide engineering faculty in the conduct of such studies have emerged over recent years. This paper presents a critique of the evolution of engineering education research and its underlying assumptions in the context of the systemic reform currently underway in engineering education. This critique leads to an analysis of the ways in which our current understanding of engineering, engineering education and research in engineering education is shaped by the traditions and cultural characteristics of the profession and grounded, albeit implicitly, in a particular suite of epistemological assumptions. It is argued that the whole enterprise of engineering education needs to be radically reconceptualized. A pluralistic approach to framing scholarship in engineering education is then proposed based on the principles of demonstrable practicality, critical interdisciplinarity and holistic reflexivity. This new framework has implications for engaging and developing faculty in the context of new teaching and learning paradigms, for the evaluation of the scholarship of teaching and for the research-teaching nexus.

Introduction: Arguments for a more grounded approach in management education

The article mentions the aims and objectives of the "Academy of Management Learning & Education" and introduces four essays in this issue. Milton R. Blood focuses on the role of business schools in generating actionable knowledge. Peter Navarro asserts that macroeconomics is necessary in MBA programs. Scott Julian and Joseph C. Ofori-Dankwa comment on business school accreditation and competition status. Michael Harmon offers an argument that competition status is negatively affecting research, teaching, and social objectives.