Challenging the De-Valuing of Education Sciences: An Analysis of U.S. Engineering Education Ph.D. Programs

Research Paper Recommended citation: Strobel, J., Sepulveda Guzman, E., & Van den Bogaard, M. (2025). Challenging the De-Valuing of Education Sciences: An Analysis of U.S. Engineering Education Ph.D. Programs. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631487. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. CHALLENGING THE DE-VALUING OF EDUCATION SCIENCES: AN ANALYSIS OF U.S. ENGINEERING EDUCATION PH.D. PROGRAMS J Strobel a,1, E Sepulveda Guzman b, M ED Van den Bogaard c, a University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, USA, ORCID 0000-0002-2124-1116 b University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, USA, ORCID 0000-0001-9442-811X c University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, USA, ORCID 0000-0002-2267-3674 Conference Key Areas: Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education; Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills Keywords: Ph.D. training; Critical Analysis ABSTRACT This research paper reports findings of a study analysing engineering education research (EER) Ph.D. programs. The last twenty years have seen a growth in U.S.- based EER Ph.D. programs. Programs vary by curriculum, admissions criteria, and outcomes. EER Ph.D. programs don’t just educate the next generation of researchers, these Ph.D. programs are embodiments of what it means to be stewards of the growing field of EER. The research was conducted by collecting curricula, advertising material and Ph.D. handbooks from 18 EER Ph.D. programs in the US. In addition, the same material was collected from two different Ph.D. programs in the each of the 18 universities: one in another DBER area (science, biology, chemistry education) and one in a traditional non-education-oriented Ph.D. program in engineering (Mechanical, Electrical). Results indicate that Ph.D. programs in EER seem to have conflicting notions of stewardship whereas other engineering disciplines have clearer defined models. The amount of core classes and disciplinary depth rooted in the depth/breadth of educational sciences seem significantly smaller than in science education, and significantly and disproportionally smaller to the amount and depth a student would gain in competencies in a Ph.D. in other engineering disciplines. 1 Corresponding Author J Strobel jmstrobe[email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Since the establishment of Ph.D. of U.S. programs in Engineering Education in 2007, the field of Engineering Education at the doctoral level has experienced significant growth, sparking important discussions about disciplinary boundaries, methodological rigor, and the legitimacy of educational research within traditional engineering contexts. Despite increasing enrolments and the formalization of Ph.D. programs with a clear “education” in their name, the role, breadth, depth and value of Education Sciences (as a broad collection of subdisciplines) in the engineering discipline-based education research settings is rarely conceptualized. By the shear small number of required education courses in ENE Ph.D. programs (details later as part of this research study), the breadth and depth of education science as disciplines seem to be reduced to a very small subset of discourses and therefore raises questions about whose expertise is acknowledged, which forms of knowledge and which discourses in education are deemed valid, and how future scholars are socialized into these emerging interdisciplinary spaces. As graduate programs in Engineering Education mature, it becomes critical to assess their structure, cultural norms, and overarching goals - particularly as they stand towards the larger context of Education Science. Such an investigation is both timely and necessary to address structural and systemic intellectual and practical blind spots that may hinder the full realization of the programs’ societal and engineering discipline’s contributions. 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS The paper uses two different theoretical lenses: (1) Epistemic Injustice and (2) Stewardship. Recent scholarship on epistemic injustice offers an insightful lens through which to examine this our research question. Gonzales, Pasque, Farris, and Hansen (2024) highlight how doctoral education in the United States can perpetuate inequities in the production and valuation of knowledge, particularly when certain epistemological stances are systematically privileged. Similarly, Dotson’s (2012) conceptualization of epistemic oppression highlights how marginalized perspectives are often discounted, thereby limiting the breadth and depth of scholarly inquiry. Our research uniquely applies Dotson’s view arguing that the field of engineering education research engages in the epistemic and intellectual oppression of education sciences. Within Engineering Education, the tension between technical knowledge and the study of teaching and learning exemplifies the potential for epistemic marginalization: some educational research traditions may be perceived as less “rigorous” or “core” than engineering research and some educational research traditions are not recognized, acknowledged nor included in the discourse of the field of engineering education, thus sidelining valuable insights into pedagogy, curriculum, instruction, student development just to name a few. By applying these epistemic injustice frameworks, we try to illuminate how the devaluing of Education Sciences undermines the field’s potential to cultivate well-rounded doctoral graduates capable of advancing engineering education research. An equally vital component of this analysis involves the concept of stewardship, as articulated by Richardson (2006). Stewardship emphasizes the responsibility of doctoral graduates not only to contribute to their disciplines’ knowledge base but also to foster its overall health and longevity. In the context of Engineering Education, stewardship implies cultivating scholars who recognize the intrinsic worth of both engineering contexts and educational theories and methodologies, thereby preserving and advancing a field that bridges technical and educational expertise. However, for stewardship to flourish, Engineering Education Ph.D. programs must be structured to encourage critical reflection on epistemic hierarchies and to celebrate diverse intellectual ways of knowing. This study addresses the existing gap by integrating stewardship principles with a critical appraisal of epistemic injustice to reveal how program design, curricula, and cultural norms of ENE Ph.D. programs shape future scholars’ capacity to sustain and enrich the discipline. By synthesizing these frameworks, we aim to examine how Engineering Education doctoral programs can more effectively promote equitable knowledge production, uphold the legitimacy of educational research, and strengthen the long-term vitality of the field. Over fifteen years since their inception, Engineering Education Ph.D. programs stand at a juncture that calls for critical introspection. This project is one step in this direction answering the following research questions: 1. Are U.S. EER Ph.D. programs fostering the equitable recognition of diverse knowledges from the education spaces? 2. Are the programs adequately preparing scholars to steward a multifaceted and complex discipline? 3. To what degree are U.S. EER Ph.D. graduates formally prepared (as evidenced by courses) in the depth and breadth of the different education science disciplines? 4. And in juxtaposition to other technical engineering Ph.D. programs, to what degree are EER Ph.D. programs as comprehensive in their Ph.D. formation as other engineering disciplines are comprehensive in their Ph.D. formation (as evidenced by requirements of admission and preparation through coursework). Addressing these questions is essential for ensuring that Engineering Education reaches its full potential as an interdisciplinary domain capable of shaping future innovators, educators, and leaders. 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review touches on the two theoretical frameworks (1) stewardship and (2) epistemic injustice. 3.1 Stewardship Stewardship in doctoral education has received increasing attention as a guiding framework for cultivating scholars who not only contribute to the knowledge base of their discipline but also nurture its future vitality. Richardson (2006) first articulated the concept by emphasizing that doctoral graduates should be “stewards of the field,” taking responsibility for the integrity and evolution of their disciplines. This responsibility extends beyond knowledge production, encompassing the preservation of intellectual standards, the mentoring of new scholars, and the ethical leadership within professional communities. Estes and Germain (2016) build on Richardson’s work by examining the role of professional academic societies as pivotal stewards of future disciplinary development. They argue that these societies can bridge the gap between individual researchers and broader disciplinary needs, offering structured programs, networking opportunities, and platforms for sharing emerging research. Such collective efforts help to define, strengthen, and legitimize the core values and knowledge domains of a discipline. Meanwhile, Lawson (2016) highlights the importance of “cross-boundary leadership” in stewardship, positing that leaders in doctoral education must effectively span the borders between academia, industry, and wider communities. This cross-sector collaboration fosters broader relevance of doctoral research and encourages more inclusive definitions of disciplinary expertise. In the context of Engineering Education Research (EER), these stewardship principles become particularly salient because EER is uniquely positioned at the intersection of engineering, social sciences, and educational research. Jesiek, Newswander, and Borrego (2009) described the complexities of EER as a “discipline, community, or field,” noting that its relatively recent emergence necessitates strong stewardship to establish sustainable scholarly practices and robust frameworks for inquiry. The positioning of EER within engineering colleges rather than schools of education can create tensions around epistemological boundaries, as well as questions of legitimacy and rigor. Stewardship in this space therefore entails reconciling differing expectations for research methodology, publication, and scholarly impact. Godfrey and Parker (2010) extend this conversation by examining the cultural landscape in engineering education, highlighting how disciplinary cultures can facilitate or hinder the integration of educational research within engineering. Their work suggests that culture-shaping mechanisms—such as accreditation standards, faculty hiring practices, and departmental reward structures—can either reinforce or challenge traditional hierarchies of knowledge. Hence, effective stewardship in EER involves actively shaping a culture that values pedagogical innovation, diverse epistemological approaches, and the cultivation of a scholarly community committed to improving engineering education. Taken together, these studies underscore that doctoral programs have a central role in preparing future stewards, particularly in emerging or interdisciplinary fields like EER. By imparting both disciplinary expertise and leadership skills, doctoral programs can foster scholars who advocate for inclusive, ethically grounded research practices and who champion cross-boundary collaborations. Key strategies include embedding stewardship principles in curricula, supporting professional societies as community hubs, and cultivating environments that encourage critical reflection on disciplinary norms. In doing so, doctoral programs can fulfil their responsibility of preparing not only adept researchers but also leaders who will sustain and advance their fields for generations to come. 3.2 Epistemic Injustice Epistemic justice, broadly understood, concerns the fair and equitable treatment of individuals as knowers and contributors of knowledge. Within this field, scholars have identified multiple interrelated forms of epistemic injustice—testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory—that occur when particular groups are dismissed, misunderstood, or systematically denied the resources to make sense of their experiences. Gonzales, Pasque, Farris, and Hansen (2024), in their systematic review of doctoral education, highlight how testimonial injustice manifests when a speaker’s credibility is deflated due to prejudices about their identity or background. While the authors provide examples such as the dismissal of certain perspectives due to race, ethnicity and upbringing, we argue here that the same mechanism holds true when and how the field of engineering education research engages with researchers from educational or social science background as their training, insights, lived experiences and firsthand accounts are rendered less believable because of lack of engineering experience for example. These authors also draw attention to hermeneutical injustice, evident when institutional structures fail to provide the conceptual tools or supportive environments needed to articulate or interpret certain experiences—especially those emerging from marginalized social positions - here we argue the breadth and depth of education sciences as marginalized in the context of engineering education. Examples might be found in a doctoral curriculum that lacks language or frameworks for discussing curriculum or the systematic design and evaluation of interventions, misalignment of theories with aims of studies due to lack of discourse on the theory itself to name a few. Ph.D. graduates are then stranded without a recognized vocabulary to name, analyse, or seek support for the patterns. Dotson’s (2012) work on “epistemic oppression” further expands these ideas by articulating the concept of contributory injustice. This arises when dominant communities not only dismiss marginalized epistemologies but actively constrain their ability to shape collective understanding. Contributory injustice in doctoral programs in EER could be the systematic exclusion of particular research and disciplinary discourses in doctoral training from required course readings or key scholarly publications. Examples could be the dismissal of other discipline-based education research such as chemistry and physics education research or the latest example in the declaration that engineering education research needs a handbook of engineering education research methods (implicitly arguing that education research methods in general have limited applicability). By omitting perspectives or declaring certain discourses less relevant, academic gatekeepers limit the discipline’s scope of inquiry, restrict intellectual exchange and therefore promote intellectual incest, and stifle the possibility for meaningful, inclusive intellectual dialogue with other disciplines. Byskov (2021) refines the basis for calling these exclusions an “injustice,” emphasizing that epistemic justice is not only about preventing harm to knowers but also about ensuring participatory parity in meaning-making. When certain voices and experiences are indeed systematically sidelined, the broader knowledge ecosystem loses critical insights and opportunities for innovation. Consequently, epistemic injustices are not merely individual slights but collective harms that undermine the legitimacy and impact of scholarly inquiry. 4 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODS The research team curated artifacts from 18 EER Ph.D. programs in the US. The collected artifacts included curricula, advertising material, and Ph.D. handbooks. In addition, the same artifacts were collected from two different Ph.D. programs in each of the 18 universities: one in another DBER area (science, biology, physics, chemistry education) and one in a traditional non-education-oriented Ph.D. program in engineering (such as Mechanical, Electrical). Once all materials were collected, a profile for each Ph.D. program, including admissions criteria, required coursework, and criteria for completion, was created. The profile’s information listed the number of required courses for each program (EER, DBER, and a traditional non-educationoriented engineering field). In addition, the team included the coursework that was part of the admissions criteria such as when a bachelor or master in engineering or related field was required. The required coursework included the number of engineering, education, and methods courses. Once all data was collected, the team proceeded to make comparisons of course requirements in terms of the number of engineering, education, and methods courses among the three different programs. The comparisons included engineering courses required in Engineering (ENG) programs versus the number of education courses required in Engineering Education Research (EER) programs, followed by a comparison of the number of required education courses in EER versus the number of required education courses in Education (EDU) programs. Lastly, the number of required methods courses was compared between the EER and the EDU courses. In an additional step, the team produced a comparative case study analysis with primarily descriptive statistics which resulted in assertions. 5 CONTEXT This study is situated in the US specific norms/traditions of Ph.D. Education: In the US, Ph.D. students are generally admitted by a department rather than directly by individual advisors. The U.S. Ph.D. system typically begins with a heavy emphasis on coursework, lasting approximately two years, designed to provide foundational knowledge and prepare students for qualifying exams. In engineering education Ph.D. programs, the coursework spans three disciplinary areas: education content (such as learning theories; curriculum; inequities in STEM education and educational leadership to name a few), human subject research methodology/methods, and engineering. While education and human subect methodology courses are central to shaping scholars in the field, engineering courses are often taken not for their intellectual contribution to the education research yet to signal credibility within engineering departments. 6 RESULTS The results of this preliminary analysis are primarily focused on descriptive statistics comparing EER Ph.D. programs to other education Ph.D. programs and comparing EER Ph.D. programs to other technical engineering Ph.D. programs based on required courses in respective areas such as methodology and education (human and social science) courses. As Figure 1 shows, on average the amount of required research methodology courses to prepare for human and social science research is significantly less compared to other education programs (DBER and non-DBER). As shown in Figure 2, when comparing the average required education courses in education Ph.D. programs compared to EER programs, education Ph.D. programs require considerably more education courses compared to EER Ph.D. programs. Fig. 1. Comparison of Methodology Courses between Education programs and EER programs Fig. 2. Comparison of the Average Education Courses required between Education and EER programs Now, when comparing engineering Ph.D. programs (such as mechanical, electrical engineering programs): Figure 3 shows a comparison of required engineering courses in other technical engineering Ph.D. programs compared to the amount of education courses required in engineering education (EER) PhD. Programs. What the data show is on average the engineering Ph.D. student receives more than twice the formal training in engineering than an engineering education Ph.D. receives formal training in education subject areas. Figure 4 goes a step further by taking into account the required prerequisites in formal education before entering the respective Ph.D. programs. Nearly all EER Ph.D. programs require either a bachelor and/or master in engineering or related subject while only one of the EER Ph.D. program require any formal training background in any subject of education. Technical engineering Ph.D. programs require however bachelor and/or master in engineering or related subjects as prerequisite for entering their Ph.D. programs. The team conservatively added the amount of engineering courses for a bachelor and respectively master (when listed as required) to the count of engineering classes. The comparison reveals a significant difference between these program types: Engineering Ph.D. Programs on average, require approximately 79.5 engineering courses, while EER Ph.D. programs require, on average, approximately 6.6 education courses. This substantial difference (more than 12 times as many courses) highlights the different focus areas of these program types. Engineering programs are heavily concentrated on engineering coursework, while EER programs include education courses as just one component of their curriculum and virtually no prerequisites in education or other human or social studies subjects. Fig. 3. Comparison of Engineering courses in Engineering Ph.D. vs. Education courses in EER Ph.D. Programs Fig. 4. Comparison of Required Courses in Engineering Ph.D. vs EER PhD. (including required undergrad + master) 7 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS The findings from this study illuminate a significant and troubling discrepancy between Engineering Education Research (EER) Ph.D. programs and their counterparts in both traditional engineering and other education-based disciplines. While EER programs claim to be interdisciplinary, rooted in both engineering and education, the curricular data analysed here suggest a profound imbalance. Education, as a domain of scholarly inquiry, appears to be marginalized—treated not as a rigorous and complex discipline in its own right, but rather as an ancillary skill set, a secondary concern to be appended lightly to the technical core of engineering expertise. This positioning undermines not only the epistemological integrity of engineering education as a field but also its future potential for disciplinary growth, innovation, and credibility. One of the patterns observed is the dramatically lower number of education-related courses required in EER programs compared to the engineering courses required in traditional engineering Ph.D. programs. This disparity—roughly a twelvefold difference—sends a clear message about the relative valuation of disciplinary depth. Traditional engineering Ph.D. students are immersed in their domain through years of formal training, beginning with rigorous undergraduate and master’s-level preparation. In contrast, EER Ph.D. programs largely assume educational expertise can be acquired in a handful of courses, if at all, with only one of the 18 programs requiring any formal background in education as a prerequisite. This stands in stark contrast to the expectations placed on engineering content mastery. From the lens of epistemic injustice, this pattern is deeply problematic: by minimizing exposure to education science and failing to require adequate foundational expertise in it, EER programs contribute to a systemic undervaluing of educational knowledge. In doing so, they risk reproducing the very hierarchies that the field, in theory, seeks to challenge. The absence of education as a rigorous, multifaceted discourse effectively sidelines entire bodies of knowledge and ways of knowing. Graduates of EER Ph.D. programs may thus be ill-equipped to meaningfully engage with or contribute to the education research community, thereby potentially reinforcing the marginalization of education sciences within engineering contexts. This structural epistemic marginalization also undermines the stewardship potential of EER Ph.D. graduates. Richardson (2006) argues that doctoral students should be prepared to act as stewards of their discipline, not merely consumers of knowledge but caretakers and advocates for its future growth and integrity. Stewardship demands a deep understanding of one’s own disciplinary history, theoretical frameworks, methodological diversity, and ethical commitments. Yet, if EER programs do not foster deep engagement with education science—if they treat it as a toolbox rather than a complex field—how can they prepare graduates to steward an interdisciplinary field that draws heavily from education? Instead, EER programs appear to offer a fractured form of stewardship—one that privileges technical fluency in engineering while marginalizing the educational theories, traditions, and debates necessary for comprehensive understanding of teaching and learning and larger educational systems and policies. This asymmetry reflects a deeper cultural issue: This orientation perpetuates a view of education as “soft,” less rigorous, or even intuitive—requiring less formal training or theoretical grounding and therefore not a true intellectual partner. Our analysis has revealed a fundamental contradiction at the heart of EER doctoral education: while the field aspires to be interdisciplinary, its formal structures suggest a devaluation of education as a serious scholarly pursuit. This discrepancy limits the field’s ability to prepare stewards who are educationally fluent. If EER is to fulfil its promise as a transformative, boundary-spanning discipline, its doctoral programs must more fully integrate the breadth and depth of education sciences—not as an add-on, but as a core pillar of scholarly formation. Without such a shift, the field risks reproducing the very inequities and hierarchies it seeks to disrupt, and in doing so, may falter in its mission to meaningfully improve engineering education. This study relies solely on published curricula, which may not fully capture the informal or hidden priorities Ph.D. programs place on education. As such, it may overlook internal discussions, mentoring practices, and cultural norms that influence how education is valued within engineering education programs.