Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions

Background: Engineers need to be able to make robust design decisions. Because design is an ill-structured endeavor, design decisions require some combination of rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches. However, engineering education remains largely oriented towards the use of rationalisti...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Emily Dringenberg, Giselle Guanes, Alexia Leonard
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	VT Publishing 2021
Materias:	decision making capstone design beliefs rationalistic intuitive empathic Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) TA1-2040 Education (General) L7-991
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5c00832c949b4459b8b3513e3ddbd9d9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5c00832c949b4459b8b3513e3ddbd9d9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5c00832c949b4459b8b3513e3ddbd9d92021-11-08T08:14:50ZStudent and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions2690-545010.21061/see.70https://doaj.org/article/5c00832c949b4459b8b3513e3ddbd9d92021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.seejournal.org/articles/70https://doaj.org/toc/2690-5450Background: Engineers need to be able to make robust design decisions. Because design is an ill-structured endeavor, design decisions require some combination of rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches. However, engineering education remains largely oriented towards the use of rationalistic approaches. Purpose/Hypothesis: We posit that the persistent gap between the need to leverage diverse approaches to make engineering design decisions and the emphasis on primarily rationalistic approaches in engineering spaces is due, in part, to the beliefs that individuals hold about diverse approaches. Design/Method: We analyzed interview transcripts to identify the beliefs shared by students and by faculty (as individual units of analysis) about rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches to making engineering design decisions, and then we compared the shared beliefs of the two groups. Results: Students and faculty similarly shared a belief that rationalistic approaches are normative in engineering. The two groups also had a common, general belief that empathic approaches are missing in engineering, but they differed in the ways in which they talked about empathic approaches. Finally, the two groups differed in their beliefs about the role of diverse approaches in practice: students believed rationalistic approaches are and should be used most in practice, but faculty believed that rationalistic approaches are inherently limited and therefore require the use of intuitive approaches. Conclusions: We interpret the pervasive belief that engineers are expected to portray their design decision making as primarily rational as a reflection of an unrealistic yet powerful social norm in engineering spaces, which can be understood as a key part of how the exclusive culture of engineering is perpetuated. We see a need to teach explicitly about this social norm in order to disrupt it, and we encourage engineering educators to reflect on how the ways in which their praxis might endorse or reinforce such unrealistic beliefs, either explicitly or implicitly.Emily DringenbergGiselle GuanesAlexia LeonardVT Publishingarticledecision makingcapstone designbeliefsrationalisticintuitiveempathicEngineering (General). Civil engineering (General)TA1-2040Education (General)L7-991ENStudies in Engineering Education, Vol 2, Iss 2 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	decision making capstone design beliefs rationalistic intuitive empathic Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) TA1-2040 Education (General) L7-991
spellingShingle	decision making capstone design beliefs rationalistic intuitive empathic Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) TA1-2040 Education (General) L7-991 Emily Dringenberg Giselle Guanes Alexia Leonard Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions
description	Background: Engineers need to be able to make robust design decisions. Because design is an ill-structured endeavor, design decisions require some combination of rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches. However, engineering education remains largely oriented towards the use of rationalistic approaches. Purpose/Hypothesis: We posit that the persistent gap between the need to leverage diverse approaches to make engineering design decisions and the emphasis on primarily rationalistic approaches in engineering spaces is due, in part, to the beliefs that individuals hold about diverse approaches. Design/Method: We analyzed interview transcripts to identify the beliefs shared by students and by faculty (as individual units of analysis) about rationalistic, intuitive, and empathic approaches to making engineering design decisions, and then we compared the shared beliefs of the two groups. Results: Students and faculty similarly shared a belief that rationalistic approaches are normative in engineering. The two groups also had a common, general belief that empathic approaches are missing in engineering, but they differed in the ways in which they talked about empathic approaches. Finally, the two groups differed in their beliefs about the role of diverse approaches in practice: students believed rationalistic approaches are and should be used most in practice, but faculty believed that rationalistic approaches are inherently limited and therefore require the use of intuitive approaches. Conclusions: We interpret the pervasive belief that engineers are expected to portray their design decision making as primarily rational as a reflection of an unrealistic yet powerful social norm in engineering spaces, which can be understood as a key part of how the exclusive culture of engineering is perpetuated. We see a need to teach explicitly about this social norm in order to disrupt it, and we encourage engineering educators to reflect on how the ways in which their praxis might endorse or reinforce such unrealistic beliefs, either explicitly or implicitly.
format	article
author	Emily Dringenberg Giselle Guanes Alexia Leonard
author_facet	Emily Dringenberg Giselle Guanes Alexia Leonard
author_sort	Emily Dringenberg
title	Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions
title_short	Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions
title_full	Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions
title_fullStr	Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions
title_full_unstemmed	Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions
title_sort	student and faculty beliefs about diverse approaches to engineering design decisions
publisher	VT Publishing
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/5c00832c949b4459b8b3513e3ddbd9d9
work_keys_str_mv	AT emilydringenberg studentandfacultybeliefsaboutdiverseapproachestoengineeringdesigndecisions AT giselleguanes studentandfacultybeliefsaboutdiverseapproachestoengineeringdesigndecisions AT alexialeonard studentandfacultybeliefsaboutdiverseapproachestoengineeringdesigndecisions
_version_	1718442811642085376

Student and Faculty Beliefs about Diverse Approaches to Engineering Design Decisions

Ejemplares similares