This paper sets out to address the problem of the imbalance between the number of quantitative and qualitative articles published in highly ranked research journals, by providing guidelines for the design, implementation and reporting of qualitative research. Clarification is provided of key terms (such as quantitative and qualitative) and the interrelationships between them. The relative risks and benefits of using guidelines for qualitative research are considered, and the importance of using any such guidelines flexibly is highlighted. The proposed guidelines are based on a synthesis of existing guidelines and syntheses of guidelines from a range of fields.

The slow advancement of women in scientific fields remains a persistent problem, especially in academia. Highly trained doctoral women in the sciences drop out of the academic pipeline for a variety of reasons that are poorly documented. This paper reports on a qualitative exploratory study based on structured interviews with 15 women who have taken career breaks after receiving their science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) PhD, but wish to re-enter the academic career track. The study aims to understand the pressures that contribute to taking such breaks, how women remain connected (or not) to their field during breaks and how re-entering the field after a career break could be facilitated. Suggestions based on the interviews include career development workshops and networking opportunities for women in breaks, as well as systemic changes such as reduced fees for society membership and conferences, changes in the way resumés are reviewed by faculty search committees, and in the design and implementation of maternity and child care leave policies.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDThis study is designed to investigate how undergraduate engineering students and their faculty define engagement. While many researchers provide descriptions and suggestions that engagement is crucial to learning, there is no widespread, standard definition for engagement to guide engineering educators. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)The purpose of this study is to begin to understand student engagement by examining how students and faculty viewed the term engagement as it relates to their engineering courses. The two key questions asked were (1) How do faculty and undergraduate students define engagement? and (2) How are their definitions similar or different? DESIGN/METHODThis exploratory study included a survey of all engineering faculty teaching first-and second-year students and first-and second-year engineering undergraduates enrolled in any engineering course within the standard curriculum at a small engineering school. RESULTSStudents view engagement in terms of faculty enthusiasm for the subject and in teaching and the availability of faculty for out-of-class interactions. Faculty members believe that engagement rests with the students. CONCLUSIONSThis study suggests that there is not a single definition of engagement for engineering students. Rather, engagement is both a process and an outcome. Faculty stimulate engagement by providing students with active learning experiences, conveying excitement and enthusiasm for their subject, and providing opportunities for student-faculty interactions. Students show their engagement by participating in class discussions, doing research projects, and interacting with their professors and peers.

No abstract