Giving an example of making claims and supporting them with evidence

Hi all,

Below is an example from my CAREER grant - when you only have 15 pages it helps to be explicit about your claims and evidence. This is the motivation section for why I wanted to study what I wanted to study :)

Engineering is inherently cross-disciplinary. The core of the engineering profession lies in integrating broad knowledge to some purpose (Bordogna 1993). Like all market-oriented research, the production of engineering knowledge draws upon disciplinary and non-disciplinary sources (Gibbons, 1994). In addition, the nature of engineering work involves thinking and working across technical and non-technical considerations (e.g., social, economic, cultures), and requires integration and management of trade-offs where solutions are judged by interdisciplinary criteria (Jonassen et al, 2006). Reports on the future of engineering education emphasize the importance of preparing engineers to become “emerging professionals” who can deal with complexity, innovate, flexibly adapt to new situations, and bridge disciplinary boundaries to produce deeper insights (Bordogna 1993; Bransford 2007; NAE 2004; Clough 2005).

Cross-disciplinary education may help diversify the engineering profession. Thinking and working across perspectives has been identified as an important research area for enhancing diversity and inclusiveness in engineering education (STEERC 2006). Cross-disciplinary education may represent an education for citizenship philosophy by enabling a tolerance for ambiguity and sensitivity towards ethical issues, political or religious bias, and power relations Newell (1994). Downey and Lucena (2006) emphasize how formulating problems across multiple perspectives has the promise of bringing issues of diversity to the core of engineering. Providing more ways to successful cross-cultural interactions honors cultural funds of knowledge and repertoires of practice (Guttierez & Rogoff 2003). Cross-disciplinary education has the potential to broaden perceptions of engineering which may impact the development of an engineering identity (EWEC 2005; Hutchinson et al. 2006; Kilgore, Chachra, et al. 2007; Loshbaugh & Claar 2007; Stevens, O’Connor et al. 2005).

Facilitating cross-disciplinary practice is a national agenda. This is evident in calls for catalyzing interdisciplinary research (CFIR, 2005), stimulating interdisciplinary approaches in engineering education (NAE 2004; Clough 2005), and encouraging innovations that help learners bridge the gap between research and application (Task Force on the Future of American Innovation 2005). Driving forces for these efforts include: the inherent complexity of nature and society, the desire to explore questions that span disciplines, the need to address societal problems, the power of new technologies, and a concern over the nation’s capacity for innovation and ability to sustain a competitive edge (CFIR, 2005; Council on Competitiveness 2005). Considerable pressure has been placed on educational institutions to demonstrate capacity in generating knowledge that can address societal problems, contributing to economic competitiveness (Horlick-Jones, 2004), and preparing professionals who can bridge the gap between research and application (Task Force on The Future of American Innovation 2005; Lawrence, 2004).

There have been substantial investments in cross-disciplinary education. These span settings (local, national, international), learning environments (formal and informal; centers, academic programs, innovation laboratories), and populations (K-12, undergraduate, graduate, practitioners). The scope and scale of cross-disciplinary research and education at Purdue University provides a case in point. For example, there are eight university wide cross-disciplinary research centers, eight cross-disciplinary programs within the College of Engineering, a Multidisciplinary Engineering bachelor’s option, a large scale multidisciplinary service learning program for undergraduates, opportunities for cross-disciplinary undergraduate research and studying abroad, and a partnership with Indiana schools to bring interdisciplinary education into K-12. A sampling of other schools reveals that Purdue is not an exception. More broadly, Klein (1996) notes that cross-disciplinary studies are present in first-year seminars, required core courses, advanced courses, and senior “capstone” seminars and projects. The National Science Foundation has made considerable investments in cross-disciplinary graduate education (e.g., IGERT program) and engineering research centers. Companies such as Proctor Gamble and Intel bring new engineering hires into “rotater” positions to enable innovation and collaboration through awareness of multiple perspectives (Johannson, 2006). There are even cross-disciplinary crucibles (e.g., Crucible at University of Cambridge), “think tanks” (Aligicia, 2004), and consulting services (e.g., the Hybrid Vigor Institute).

There is surprisingly little empirical research on the nature and development of cross-disciplinary ways of thinking, acting, and being in engineering contexts that may guide the success of these efforts (Bromme, 2000; Gidgunis, 2004; Klein 1990; Lattuca, 2001; Pfirman, 2005; Young, 2001). Most research is associated with humanities and the social sciences. For example, Lattuca’s study (2001) on the processes, products, and outcomes of interdisciplinarity generated important findings; however it is not clear how findings may relate to engineering contexts. Lattuca (2001, 2004) also identified important research opportunities such as investigating how educators approach cross-disciplinary teaching practice and the need for disciplinary “grounding” for cross-disciplinary practice. Galison (1997) investigated modern experimental practice such as high energy physics to characterize the complex web of activity around instruments and the emergence of “trading zones”. While important for advancing a theory of cross-disciplinary practice, it is unclear how findings may transfer to contexts that cross “hard” and “soft” disciplines such as engineering education research, healthcare engineering, and sustainable design. Perhaps the most extensive work in engineering is an ethnographic, longitudinal study of biomedical engineering research laboratories (Nersessian 2006; Newstetter, Kurz-Milcke et al. 2004). While this work provides deep insights into cognition and learning in innovation “agentive” environments, complementary research is needed to explore how findings may transfer to other cross-disciplinary engineering situations. There is also emerging work on the process of being and becoming interdisciplinary engineering education researchers (Allendoerfer, Adams et al. 2007; Borrego 2007).

The purpose of this proposal is to investigate the nature and development of cross-disciplinary ways of thinking, being, and acting in engineering and facilitate a scholarship of cross-disciplinary teaching and learning. This will be accomplished through the following integrated research and education activities:

(1) Longitudinal studies to investigate the nature and development of cross-disciplinary ways of thinking, acting, and being in engineering contexts, as well as how it relates to disciplinary practice

(2) Two Interdisciplinary Commons that will facilitate a scholarship of cross-disciplinary teaching and learning and enable investigations into the ways educators approach cross-disciplinary teaching practice, and

(3) Pilot studies of research-to-practice transformations to stimulate next generation activities

In the following sections I define cross-disciplinary practice, identify the theoretical concepts framing the proposed work, and describe the Research and Education plans. This is followed with a description of prior NSF support, PI qualifications, available resources, the Advisory Board, anticipated outcomes and dissemination, evaluation, and links to NSF review criteria.