An ethnographic study of an engineering community: Mentoring as a tacit rule and its implications for how people learn

Abstract

Abstract Background Laboratory studies explore the norms and characteristics of scientific practice and explain the constructive nature of knowledge production. However, how learning and research are sustained in engineering research laboratories at the graduate level requires further investigation. Purpose We explored the cultural characteristics of an interdisciplinary engineering research center and documented how its members interacted and sustained both research and learning activities. Design/Method We employed ethnographic data collection strategies to document the process of developing expertise (i.e., learning) and meaningfully contributing (i.e., research) at the center. Participant observations, field notes, and interviews were conducted. Results The center did not resemble the research laboratories described in prior ethnographic studies in terms of physical space; however, it is an organizational system that demonstrates various dimensions of human activity. We present our results in four subsections: (1) configurations of the research groups, (2) the roles and responsibilities of the engineering researchers, (3) characterization of the research center as a community of practice, and (4) authentic engineering practices. Mentoring as a tacit rule played a central role in sustaining engineering learning and research activities. It was dependent on the managerial preferences of lead engineering researchers as they developed different identities over time. Meetings, cultural transformation, shared repertoire, and tools characterized the center as a community of practice. Conclusions Our findings inform how people learn. Educational settings should foster similar characteristics (e.g., mentoring to sustain engineering research, learning, and building a community of practice) to better portray authentic engineering and science practices to students.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.