Finally Getting It

This post is the result of a conversation I had with my engineering supervisor a couple of weeks ago with regards to my thesis. One of his concerns is that for an engineering audience, I must make sure that it is "technically sound". Now at the time I was thinking "This is a more of a qualitative study, what does he mean by "technical"? Is he talking about analysis of data? Well the data I am analyzing is from interviews. Now, after running this over in my head, I think that I finally get what he was talking about. Engineering is a positivist field. Almost everything is fairly black and white. In order for this (or any other) qualitative study to gain acceptance, it must be firmly grounded in theory and practice. I must be sure that the analysis of the text follows a proven methodology and that the theories I am presenting are also backed up by other research. At least I am hoping this is what he meant!!??
I think that one of the hurdles that engineering education researchers must overcome is the fact that many of the theories have never been proven in the engineering context. While various approaches and methods have been tried with individual classes, there is very little to support the idea that these create better engineers. I have found little in the way of follow-up that says that students exposed to these alternative methods perform better in the work-force. An example is the new Olin College which is heavily based on hands-on, constructivist principles and teaching methodologies. But only recently have their graduates entered the work force and there as of yet, been little to show they are superior to graduates from other engineering schools. What I think needs to happen in order for engineering faculties to buy into these new methodologies is concrete proof that they do work. A long term effort must be made that follows students through a "new" curriculum and after to see how they do perform. Only then will engineering educators begin to see the value of the change.