Practitioner Experience Meets Graduate Academic Research: How Intersections Guide the Work of Returning Engineering Ph.D. Students

Murray, Jaclyn Kuspiel; Daly, Shanna R.; Mosyjowski, Erika A.; Peters, Diane L.

doi:10.18260/1-2--28749

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This initial study found that the primary value driving returners back to school was utility value, with a lesser emphasis on interest and attainment, and examined the various costs and cost mitigation strategies that returners experience and utilize. Further work, utilizing EVT, was conducted in a nationwide study of engineering returners in doctoral programs [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. This work found similar results for cost categories, compared to earlier work, and provided more insight into the needs of returners in these programs.…”

Section: Returnersmentioning

confidence: 87%

Investigating the Experiences of Military Professionals who Return to Engineering Graduate School

Peters

Gross

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Those graduate students known as returners, who have a gap of at least five years between their undergraduate degree conferral and their return to school for a graduate degree, have a wide variety of different experiences. While many of them spend those gap years in employment at an industrial employer, some of them serve in the military in various capacities. As military experience is different from working at an industrial employer, one might expect that these returners will be different in their outlook, skills, or approach to learning. In this study, the differences between military returners and returners from industry are examined. Twenty-one returners were interviewed, of whom seven had either served in or worked directly for the military as a civilian. The interview protocol covered the participants' decision-making process, challenges they experienced in the program, and whether and how their past experiences interacted with or had an influence on their education. The transcripts of these interviews are analyzed, and the two groups are compared, with key differences and similarities, such as their approach to leadership, noted. In addition, the findings from this analysis are compared to military personnel entering an undergraduate program, as reported in the literature.

show abstract