Content uploaded by Andrew Valentine
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Valentine on Jul 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Identifying career pathways to engineering
education research in Australia
1st Andrew Valentine
Computing and Information Systems
University of Melbourne
Melbourne, Australia
0000-0002-8640-4924
2nd Bill Williams
CEGIST
University of Lisbon; TUDublin
Lisbon, Portugal; Dublin, Ireland
0000-0003-1604-748X
Abstract— Currently there is limited understanding about
the academic qualifications (or formal research training) which
engineering education researchers possess, and which university
departments they primarily reside in. The objective of this study
is to capture information on these researcher characteristics via
bibliographic analysis of publicly available sources.
A list of 104 authors affiliated with Australian institutions
who published in at least one of thirteen engineering education
journals between 2018-2019 (inclusive) was retrieved. For each
author, information about their qualifications and where they
worked was compiled from available biographic information in
their publications (e.g. often common in IEEE publications),
ORCID profile, Scopus profile, the Australian TROVE
database, and online university researcher profile. In total, 80
authors held a known PhD; 30 in technical engineering, 12 in
engineering education, 3 in education, 21 in other disciplines,
and 14 not specified. Of the 67 with known bachelor degrees,
69% were in engineering, the remainder widely varied. 92
authors worked in a university; 56 in engineering faculty, 9 in
computing faculty, 13 in other faculty, 9 in teaching and
learning departments, 4 in other capacities at a university. 4
authors did not work at a university.
Our findings show that while a minority of engineering
education researchers hold technical engineering PhD degrees,
PhD theses on engineering education topics are becoming more
widespread and we can predict a growing community of
Australian engineering researchers. These data can assist with
planning strategies for further increasing engagement with
engineering education research in the Australian context.
Keywords—engineering education researchers, qualifications,
census, Australia
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Engineering education research (EER) began to receive
attention as a scholarly field of inquiry early this century [1]
and attention was subsequently devoted to characterising
pathways into EER. An early study by Allendoerfer et al. [2]
identified a process in the US they called intentional
serendipity in scholars’ actions to gain entry to the field such
as “applying for certain jobs, introducing themselves to key
people, attending certain conferences or meetings, or simply
making a point of being open to new ideas from outside their
home disciplines”. The same authors collaborated with other
researchers to trace similar pathways in international contexts
[3].
Meanwhile, in Australia, researchers used a landscape
metaphor to describe EER as a knowledge domain [4] and
identified three broad groups of domain participants:
emerging, intermediate, and established researchers. More
recent work in Australia has focused on emerging engineering
education researchers and proposed a conceptual model of the
EER transition process through the lens of Bourdieu’s Theory
of Practice.
All of these studies gathered their data via an approach we
can classify as outreach, one where the authors contacted
researchers to request an interview that was recorded and
subsequently transcribed and analysed through a coding
process. Interviewing participants can produce rich data but
logistical limitations usually lead to relatively small data
samples. Larger samples can be achieved by adopting an
online survey outreach procedure but this also has limitations,
in particular low response rates can lead to limited data
reliability.
In recent years, use of both these outreach approaches has
been further constrained by the recognition of ethical aspects
of use of data obtained from research participants. With the
above in mind, the authors decided to investigate the
possibility of harvesting existing data made available by
researchers in their publications, Scopus profile, ORCID
profile, the TROVE database (database of publications by the
National Library of Australia, including PhD theses) and
online university research profile to explore their pathways
into EER. Although this was expected to provide less rich data
than outreach approaches, it could allow us to work with large
datasets given that the information was already in the public
domain. The study received human research ethical approval
from each author’s respective university.
B. Australian EER Landscape
PhD programs which are specifically targeted to the field
of engineering education research are limited, and of those
which exist, most are located in the United States [5].
Currently there are no PhD programs offered in Australia
which are specifically targeted to the field of engineering
education. While PhD students in Australia can undertake a
doctoral thesis on an engineering education related topic, often
they will officially have to enrol in a PhD program in
engineering.
Many engineering education researchers begin their career
doing technical research, then commence educational research
later on. Engineering education researchers are likely to have
trained in other fields of research (such as applied engineering)
before commencing engineering education research at a later
point during their careers [5], [6]. Studies have highlighted the
phenomenon of Australian engineering academics adjusting
their research work to commence engineering education
research [6]–[10]. From a statistical viewpoint, Australian
engineering academics who commence education research at
some point in their career tend to do so 7 years on average
after starting their research careers [11].
Conducting EER in Australia can be challenging as
teaching-related research is often considered by academic
colleagues (and universities) to be less legitimate than
technical research [6], [10], which can be a problem for
academics when it comes to performance reviews. Often
researchers ‘felt that they had to maintain some technical
research even when they found it “boring”’ [10].
C. Contribution of this study to the literature
While previous studies have investigated the experiences
of becoming an engineering education researcher, there is a
lack of studies which have attempted to map the qualifications
and background of engineering education researchers on a
nation-wide scale. It is important to build further
understanding of how people become engineering education
researchers, to what extent researchers in the field tend to do
a technical PhD then start educational research later on,
whether PhD’s in engineering education are common or not,
and whether researchers are primary in engineering or other
university departments. This information will help to
understand the diverse backgrounds and career paths of
engineering education researchers, and how to foster interest
in the research field.
D. Research Question
How can publicly available data enable us to construct a
profile for Australian Engineering Education researchers?
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Approach
Existing studies which have investigated the phenomenon
of Australian engineering academics commencing educational
research have primarily used interviews, critical reflections, or
surveys [6]–[10].
This study used a qualitative document analysis approach,
which combines aspects of content analysis and thematic
analysis [12]. Documents were deductively analysed to locate
specific pieces of information about each researcher,
including their academic qualifications (such as Bachelor of
Engineering) and the location where they worked (such as a
university department). The documents which were analysed
biographic information in their publications, Scopus profile,
ORCID profile, TROVE database and online university
research profile.
B. Getting a list of Australian engineering education
researchers
A list of 104 authors affiliated with Australian institutions
who published in at least one of thirteen engineering education
journals between 2018-2019 (inclusive) was retrieved. The
thirteen journals were: Advances in Engineering Education,
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, (Education
for Chemical Engineers, European Journal of Engineering
Education, Global Journal of Engineering Education, IEEE
Transactions on Education, International Journal of Electrical
Engineering Education, International Journal of Engineering
Education, International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy,
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,
Journal of Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering
Education Transformations, Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice (now Journal of Civil
Engineering Education).
These journals were selected as they are indexed by
Scopus, and were established journals that had been
publishing for at least several years. Related journals which
focused heavily on technology aspects (such as Computer
Applications in Engineering Education and IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies) or non-tertiary
settings (such as Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research) were not included.
C. Determining the researchers’ academic qualifications
A spreadsheet was used to record information for each
author (including where all information was sourced from).
For each author, their qualifications including bachelors,
masters, and PhD degrees and where they worked was
compiled from biographic information in their publications,
Scopus profile, ORCID profile, TROVE database, and online
researcher profile.
Where possible, details about the sub-discipline of each
degree was also recorded (e.g. B.Eng. in Electrical
Engineering), although this was not always possible as many
authors only gave the main degree title (e.g. B.Eng.),
especially for PhD degrees (sometimes only given as ‘PhD’).
Additional details given by authors were also used to
determine sub-discipline of degrees. For example, several
authors on noted they had a ‘PhD, Engineering’ but details
which were given in their thesis made it clear the topic was
actually in Engineering Education. For PhD degrees where the
discipline/topic was unknown, an attempt was also made to
locate the author’s PhD thesis document in the TROVE
database to determine this.
III. RESULTS
A. Researchers’ bachelor degree academic qualifications
Information about bachelor degrees was identified for 67
authors (Table 1). This was lower than those who had
information about PhD studies (80), because researchers often
only listed PhD credentials. Of the 67 researchers who held
known bachelor degrees, 46 (68.7%) held a degree in
engineering, with electrical engineering (15), mechanical
engineering (8), and civil engineering (4) being the most
common. 12 held a bachelor of engineering, but did not
specify which discipline. The 21 researchers who held a
bachelor degree in a field other than engineering were
dispersed amongst a large number of fields. Interestingly,
none held a degree in the field of education or teaching.
Researchers’ master degree academic qualifications
Of the 104 researchers, information about master degree
studies (coursework or research) was found for 39 (Table 2).
The clear majority of these degrees were in engineering (23)
or engineering science (2), with the rest being in distributed in
a range of fields such as education, science, and arts. One
author mentioned having a masters degree, but did not specify
the field.
B. Researchers’ PhD (or equivalent) academic
qualifications
Of the 104 researchers, information about PhD or doctoral
studies was found for 80 (Table 3). Of 80 researchers who held
a PhD, 30 (37.5%) had completed a PhD in a technical
engineering topic, 12 (15.0%) had completed a PhD in
engineering education, and 2 (2.5%) had a PhD in computing
education. 14 had completed a PhD but did not specify which
field or topic the PhD had been completed in. 3 had a PhD in
health, while another 3 had a PhD in education. The remainder
who possessed a PhD were dispersed amongst a large number
of fields.
C. Where researchers work
Of the 104 researchers, information about where they
work (if at all) was found for 95 (Table 4). Out of 95, 92
worked at a university, 3 worked somewhere other than a
university. Unsurprisingly, most (79) authors worked in a
faculty or department at a university. 56 worked in an
engineering faculty, 9 worked in a computing faculty, 13 in
other faculties.
9 researchers worked in a university Teaching and
Learning (T&L) department or equivalent, which focus on
developing the teaching skills of university staff or conducting
research in tertiary settings (note this is not the same as the
Education faculty, who train students to become teachers).
Examples of this are the Engineering Learning Lab at the
University of Melbourne, and the Academy of Learning &
Teaching at Queensland University of Technology.
TABLE I. TYPE OF BACHELOR’S DEGREES WHICH THE AUTHORS
(N=104) HELD
Type of Bachelor’s Degree Detailed
Frequency
Applied Science
1
Arts
3
Business
1
Computer Science
2
Construction Management
1
Engineering - Aerospace
1
Engineering - Chemical
2
Engineering - Civil
4
Engineering - Electrical
15
Engineering - Environmental
2
Engineering - Geology
1
Engineering - Mechanical
8
Engineering - Naval
1
Engineering - Not Specified
12
Environmental Science
1
Geology
1
Health
1
Industrial Design
1
Not Specified
2
Nursing
1
Psychology
1
Science - Not Specified
3
Science - Physics
1
Social Science
1
Total
67
Could not be identified, or did not possess
37
TABLE II. TYPE OF MASTER’S DEGREES WHICH THE AUTHORS
(N=104) HELD
Type of Master’s Degree Detailed
Frequency
Arts
2
Chemistry
1
Computer Science
1
Education
2
Engineering
23
Engineering Science
2
Health
1
Marketing
1
Music
1
Not Specified
1
Science
1
Science - Other
3
Total
39
Could not be identified, or did not possess
65
TABLE III. TYPE OF PHD DEGREES WHICH THE AUTHORS (N=104)
HELD
Type of PhD or Doctoral Degree Detailed
Frequency
Anthropology
1
Building
2
Business
2
Computer Science
2
Computing Education
2
Economics
1
Education
3
Engineering
30
Engineering Education
12
Health
3
Higher Education
1
In progress
1
Industrial Design
1
Linguistics
1
Mathematics
2
Music
1
Not Specified
14
Surveying
1
Total
80
Could not be identified, or did not possess
24
TABLE IV. LOCATIONS WHERE AUTHORS (N=104) WORKED IN
UNIVERSITIES OR ELSEWHERE
Location
Frequency
University Faculty - Computing
9
University Faculty - Education
1
University Faculty - Engineering
56
University Faculty - Other
13
Other
3
University - Not Specified
3
University - Other
1
University – Teaching & Learning Department,
Unit, or Office
9
Total
95
Could not be identified, or did not work
9
IV. DISCUSSION
The findings presented above have demonstrated that there
is something of a general profile of Australian engineering
education researchers: researchers predominantly hold
technical bachelor and masters degrees, but at the doctoral
level there is a higher number of social science programs.
At the bachelor degree level, the clear majority were in
engineering (69% of those with a known degree). Masters
degrees were less common than bachelor degrees. However,
of the 39 researchers who held a master's degree, 25 (64%)
were in an engineering field. Overall, this shows a high
prevalence of technical qualifications at the bachelor and
masters level. This reflects the previous findings of Dart et. al
[6] who found that EE researchers had typically done an
undergraduate degree in a STEM field, and Gardner & Willey
[7] where EER participants had a first degree in engineering.
In contrast, PhDs in technical engineering were less
common. Of the 80 researchers with PhD in a known field, 30
were in engineering. 18 out of 80 held a PhD in an education-
related area, including 12 in engineering education (the
remainder being in education, higher education, or computing
education). This shows that the prevalence of engineering-
centric qualifications decreases as the level of qualification
increases from bachelor to masters, then masters to PhD. This
reflects the work of Gardner & Willey [8] about identify
reconstruction, where 14 of the 19 EER participants held a
PhD in a typical engineering field, and 5 were undertaking or
had completed a PhD in engineering education. However, this
study shows that there are a wider variety of pathways that
appear as ways into EER, than those shown by Gardner &
Willey [8] and Dart et. al [6]. There were numerous EE
researchers who had a pathway outside of the main pathway
(i.e. bachelor and PhD in engineering), and have a wider range
of undergraduate and PhD degrees.
Perhaps surprisingly though, very few (if any) of the
researchers were from fields such as educational psychology
or higher education. It was expected that researchers from
these fields may collaborate on engineering education
research more frequently. However, this may be limitation of
the journals which authors were selected from. Researchers in
these fields may work in engineering education research, but
may publish their related work in psychology or higher
education journals.
Although there are no official engineering education
focused PhD programs within Australia, researchers are still
able to find ways to complete thesis topics in this field and
PhD theses on engineering education topics are becoming
more widespread. However, these PhD candidates may be
relatively isolated and be the only one at their institution doing
a PhD in this field. This is in contrast to the United States for
example, where there are entire facilities specialising in
engineering education research with dedicated PhD programs
(e.g. Virginia Tech, Purdue, Clemson, Utah State University
[13]).
It was also shown that most researchers work at a
university, which was expected. Unsurprisingly, a majority of
researchers work in university engineering faculties.
Interestingly, a sizeable proportion of researchers also worked
in university computing faculty (i.e. information technology,
computer science, software engineering) and university
teaching and learning departments, while others worked in
areas such as student services. This is of note because it
demonstrates that researchers in the field are primarily based
in engineering faculty, but others in the university also
participate in engineering education research.
V. LIMITATIONS
There are limitations of this study which must be noted.
First, as noted above, the sample of researchers was only
drawn from engineering education journals. Other journals
which may include articles on engineering education topics
were not considered. This may limit the diversity of the
sample of researchers which was retrieved and analysed.
However, by focusing on only engineering education journals,
this builds an understanding of what is likely the clear
majority or core of researchers in this area. A second
limitation is that the findings presented here are specific to
Australia, and may not be readily transferable to other
countries.
An issue that was encountered while collecting data was
also that the dataset may be incomplete, in that not all
information could be found for all researchers. For example,
Table 3 shows that 14 authors said they had a PhD, but never
described the topic across the online profiles which were
searched. Many authors also did not provide details of their
bachelor and master degrees in their biographic information in
applicable publications. It is possible that the authors could be
asked about this missing information, but this arguably defeats
the purpose of using this research methodology which relies
on readily accessible information. Overall, while some data
may be absent, it is likely that using this approach gathered
data about more authors than if a survey was used (where
response rates may be low), which builds a more accurate
understanding of researchers in the field.
Finally, it is important to mention that these findings are
specific to the Australian engineering education domain. We
hope to apply a similar approach to analysing trends in the
Portuguese context and that of other European countries
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that there is a growing community of
engineering education researchers in Australia despite the
absence of doctoral programs formally dedicated to the field.
While the majority of published authors in our sample had
engineering or STEM first degrees the prevalence of
engineering-centric qualifications decreased as the level of
qualification increases from bachelor to masters, then masters
to PhD.
PhD theses on engineering education topics are becoming
more widespread and we can predict a growing community of
Australian engineering researchers. These data can assist with
planning strategies for further increasing engagement with
engineering education research in the Australian context.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
[Author blinded for review] is included as an author in the
dataset gathered and analysed during this study.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Haghighi, “Quiet no longer: Birth of a new discipline,” Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 4, p. 351, 2005.
[2] C. Allendoerfer, R. Adams, P. Bell, L. Fleming, and L. Leifer,
“Becoming an engineering education researcher: Finding pathways
toward interdisciplinarity,” in Annual American Educational Research
Association (AERA) Conference, 2007, vol. 17.
[3] J. A. Siddiqui, C. Allendoerfer, R. S. Adams, and B. Williams,
“Integration of scholarship: Interconnections among three studies on
becoming an engineering education researcher,” International Journal
of Engineering Education, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2352–2377, 2016.
[4] A. P. Gardner and K. Willey, “Mapping the engineering education
research landscape in Australia,” presented at the 24th Annual
Conference of Australasian Association for Engineering Education,
Gold Coast, Australia, 2013.
[5] M. Borrego and J. Bernhard, “The Emergence of Engineering
Education Research as an Internationally Connected Field of Inquiry,”
Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 14–47, 2011.
[6] S. Dart et al., “Moving from crime and punishment to success and
reward: Transitioning from technical to educational research,” in
Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium,
South Africa, 2019, pp. 329–338.
[7] A. Gardner and K. Willey, “Framing the academic identity of emerging
researchers in engineering education,” International Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2332–2351, 2016.
[8] A. Gardner and K. Willey, “Academic identity reconstruction: the
transition of engineering academics to engineering education
researchers,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 234–250,
2018.
[9] L. Mann, R. Chang, and A. Mazzolini, “Hidden barriers to academic
staff engaging in Engineering Education Research,” presented at the
Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011, Madrid, 2011.
[10] [L. Kavanagh, L. O’Moore, and L. Jolly, “Mad as hell and not taking
it any more?: Job satisfaction amongst engineering educators in
Australian universities,” in 23rd Annual Conference of the
Australasian Association for Engineering Education 2012: Profession
of Engineering Education: Advancing Teaching, Research and
Careers: Advancing Teaching, Research and Careers, 2012, pp. 600–
608.
[11] A. Valentine and B. Williams, “Engineering education and non-
education research: a scientometric comparison of 7 countries,”
presented at the REES-AAEE 2021 Conference, Perth, Australia, 2021.
[12] [G. A. Bowen, “Document analysis as a qualitative research method,”
Qualitative Research Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27–40, 2009.
[13] [H. G. Murzi, P. Shekhar, and L. D. McNair, “Comparative Analysis
of Ph. D. Programs in Engineering Education,” in 2015 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, 2015, pp. 26–368.
