Pushing Boundaries in the History of Computing

Crossing topical, analytical, and theoretical boundaries can lead us to more nuanced and satisfying histories of computing, while also providing fresh insights about computing in the contemporary context.     

Boundary Spanning and Engineering: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Background

Engineers are often expected to span organizational, cultural, stakeholder, geographic, temporal, and other boundaries. Yet, few studies on boundary spanning have appeared in the engineering education literature, suggesting the need for improved theoretical and conceptual foundations to guide empirical studies of boundary spanning in engineering.

Purpose

To develop a more comprehensive understanding of boundary spanning, this study addresses five research questions: (a) What types of boundaries have been identified as topics of interest? (b) How are boundary spanners and boundary spanning defined? (c) What types of activities and behaviors comprise or have been linked to boundary spanning? (d) What individual competencies and characteristics have been proposed or studied as important for boundary spanning? and (e) What boundary spanning themes are most prominent in studies of engineers and other technical professionals?

Scope/Method

Using a qualitative systematic review process, we identified and analyzed 72 scholarly papers from multiple disciplines. Multiple reviewers coded each paper using a hybrid deductive‐inductive content analysis process to identify key themes related to boundary spanning.

Conclusions

The analysis resulted in a framework consisting of six boundary types, three types of roles and definitions, and five types of activities. Discussion of boundary spanning competencies was limited in the collected works, and only seven papers exclusively focused on engineers. We conclude by proposing boundary spanning as an important meta‐attribute for engineers and a promising lens for investigating engineering practice. We also relate our findings to the engineering education literature and suggest directions for future research.     

Engineering Education Research: Discipline,Community, or Field?

Engineering education research has experienced a notable scale‐up in recent years through the development of departments and degree programs, high‐profile publication outlets, research agendas, and meetings. We begin by reviewing these developments, contextualizing them historically, and clarifying some relevant terminology. We then use observational data collected at the 2007 inaugural International Conference on Research in Engineering Education (ICREE) to examine how engineering education is variously conceptualized as a discipline, community of practice, and/or field. We also examine how ICREE participants engaged with questions about the infrastructure and major goals of engineering education research. Our data reveals both an overall lack of clarity and continued sense of ambiguity about the identity and status of engineering education research. We conclude by recommending that participants and stakeholders work to clarify the goals and objectives of engineering education research, especially to inform the continued development of the field's identity and supporting infrastructures.     

The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently

This paper offers and tests an approach to conceptualizing the global competency of engineers. It begins by showing that the often‐stated goal of working effectively with different cultures is fundamentally about learning to work effectively with people who define problems differently. The paper offers a minimum learning criterion for global competency and three learning outcomes whose achievement can help engineering students fulfill that criterion. It uses the criterion to establish a typology of established methods to support global learning for engineering students. It introduces the course, Engineering Cultures, as an example of an integrated classroom experience designed to enable larger numbers of engineering students to take the critical first step toward global competency, and it offers a test application of the learning criterion and outcomes by using them to organize summative assessments of student learning in the course.     

Competencies Beyond Countries: The Re‐Organization of Engineering Education in the United States,Europe, and Latin America

For over two centuries, the competencies that engineers have been expected to gain from engineering education have been associated with countries. Increased mobility in the workplace is generating pressure to expand competencies beyond countries. A key indicator of changing expectations is found in efforts by engineering education organizations to extend themselves beyond countries. This article compares the transformation of engineering education organizations in the United States with those in Europe and Latin America. In the U.S., organizations are attempting to expand directly from the country to the globe, relying upon prior acceptance of a redefinition of required competencies. In Europe, the redefinition of engineering competencies is taking longer to develop as participating organizations have worked first to define a new regional identity in terms of continental mobility and economic competitiveness. Finally, in Latin America, the redefinition of competencies awaits a resolution of a competition between alternative models of the region. This study of the expected competencies of engineers contributes to the research area of engineering epistemologies. Overall, the contemporary re‐definition of competencies in engineering education is not a universal phenomenon but depends upon success in defining identities that extend beyond the country.