Stephen Reviews Some Research

use third-person constructed narratives instead of first-person accounts to balance fidelity to participants’ experiences with the analytical depth provided by the researchers’ interpretations. This approach allows for the integration of theoretical frameworks, such as boundary spanning, into the narratives while avoiding an over-reliance on direct quotations. By adopting a third-person style, the authors could synthesize data from interviews to create cohesive portrayals of participants’ experiencesIn this post, I plan to review a few articles I've read recently that I expect will make their way into the second or third chapter of my dissertation. As a reminder, I'm planning to explore narratives of leadership and liberation (i.e., a liberatory curricula ala Friere & hooks) amongst undergraduate engineering student organization leaders. This topic not only aligns well with my day-to-day professional work, but is also deeply interesting to me as I've been able to witness first hand the transformative effect these leaders have had on the institutions around them and that the leadership role has had on the individuals. 

I've selected two articles that both employ narrative inquiry in higher education contexts: one examines early-career engineering graduates while the other examines the experiences of a doctoral student in Hong Kong; we'll begin with the latter. 

Teng, F. (2020). A narrative inquiry of identity construction in academic communities of practice: Voices from a Chinese doctoral student in Hong Kong. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 15(1), 40-59.

This article employs narrative inquiry to explore the identity construction of a Chinese doctoral student in Hong Kong named "Bay." The work highlights the challenges of academic enculturation, identity negotiation, and roles within communities of practice. Bay's struggles with academic writing, adapting to implicit community rules, and developing a sense of belonging serve as important themes in this narrative, underscoring the dynamic nature of identity formation in academia. I am particularly drawn to the methodology and the way it serves to illustrate the negotiation of identity. 

In assessing this article, it adheres to typical standards associated with narrative inquiry and is well-grounded in the theoretical framework of communities of practice. The use of multiple interviews with the participant and cross-validation of data lends verisimilitude to the findings, and while single-participant works are not uncommon in narrative inquiry, I do think 2-3 more participants could have brought forth somewhat broader insights. The participant choice leads directly to my questions or concerns: how might the findings have varied if multiple doctoral students were interviewed, and, tying it to my research interest, how might themes be similar or different if the student had been in a STEM program (rather than a language/education program)?

The next article is: Jesiek, B. K., Buswell, N. T., & Nittala, S. (2021). Performing at the boundaries: Narratives of early career engineering practice. Engineering Studies, 13(2), 86-110. - from a Purdue Eng. Ed. Faculty member!

Summary: This study employs narrative inquiry to explore the boundary-spanning experiences of early-career engineers in large manufacturing firms. Through third-person constructed narratives based on interviews with 23 participants, the authors provide holistic depictions of day-to-day engineering work. The study highlights how engineers navigate various professional boundaries—such as organizational, disciplinary, and knowledge-based—and how these interactions shape their evolving roles and responsibilities. The use of narrative inquiry not only illustrates the complexity of sociotechnical practices but also captures the nuanced ways engineers adapt to and influence their professional environments.

Assessment: This article is robust in its methodological rigor, employing a systematic coding process and integrating theoretical insights into boundary spanning. Its reliance on 23 interviews adds depth, though its focus on a specific industry (manufacturing) may limit applicability to other engineering domains. I also appreciated the use third-person constructed narratives instead of first-person accounts to balance fidelity to participants’ experiences with the analytical depth provided by the researchers’ interpretations. This approach allows for the integration of theoretical frameworks, such as boundary spanning, into the narratives while avoiding an over-reliance on direct quotations. By adopting a third-person style, the authors could synthesize data from interviews to create cohesive portrayals of participants’ experiences, but this choice also leads to some of my questions/concerns. Namely, how might the choice of third-person constructed narratives influence the authenticity of participants' voices? Could this style unintentionally obscure certain emotional or experiential nuances that a first-person approach might highlight?

How might these influence my thinking and research? Both articles provide critical insights into leadership, identity development, and navigating boundaries that will directly inform my research on the narratives of leadership and liberation among undergraduate engineering student organization leaders.

From Teng (2020), the emphasis on identity construction within communities of practice highlights the importance of mentorship, self-reflection, and agency in shaping leadership roles. These concepts resonate with my interest in exploring how student leaders cultivate a sense of empowerment and voice within their organizations. Teng’s narrative of Bay’s struggles with belonging and eventual recognition as a legitimate member of his academic community parallels the journey of student leaders navigating institutional structures to create change. This framework will help me analyze how these leaders balance institutional expectations with their own aspirations for liberation and advocacy.

From Jesiek et al. (2021), the use of narrative inquiry to explore boundary spanning in professional contexts provides a methodological and theoretical foundation for examining the sociotechnical complexities of leadership. The study underscores how early-career engineers grow into leadership roles by managing interdependent relationships, coordinating across teams, and influencing stakeholders. These findings align closely with the role of undergraduate engineering leaders, who often span boundaries between peers, faculty, and administration. Applying Jesiek’s framework, I can better understand how student leaders navigate these relationships and how their leadership evolves in response to institutional pressures and opportunities for advocacy.

Together, these articles highlight the importance of adaptability, communication, and relational skills in leadership, which I will integrate into my analysis of how student leaders enact and experience liberatory curricula within engineering organizations.

Synthesis

Both Teng (2020) and Jesiek et al. (2021) highlight the dynamic process of navigating boundaries and constructing identities, providing valuable perspectives for understanding undergraduate engineering student leaders. Teng’s focus on identity construction within communities of practice emphasizes personal growth, agency, and belonging, which mirrors the internal development student leaders undergo as they advocate for change and legitimacy within institutional structures. Jesiek’s study on boundary spanning offers a complementary view, emphasizing how individuals navigate sociotechnical challenges and coordinate across organizational divides, a skillset central to student leaders managing relationships with peers, faculty, and administrators.

Together, these articles provide a dual framework for my research: Teng’s narrative of personal and community identity informs how student leaders foster mutual engagement and mentorship within their organizations, while Jesiek’s boundary-spanning lens illuminates their strategies for influencing institutional policies and creating liberatory spaces. By integrating these insights, I can explore how student leaders both grow as individuals and effect systemic change within the engineering education landscape.