could be made more explicit and potentially broadened to include a wider rangeof communication styles and ways of being.We envision any departmental reform process, qualifying exams and beyond, to be a collaborativeone with faculty working alongside students. The Carnegie Foundation’s book, “The Formationof Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century” explores manyavenues of growth for higher education. One of their key highlights is the importance of studentinvolvement in evolving an educational program. Students are “the secret weapon for change”,and they found that when faculty were asked to work alongside students while reforming theirprograms, the faculty’s most transformative
, andaccumulative lived experience. Through cultivation of this reflexive knowledge, we developeddeeper insights into the participants lived experiences and how that knowledge emerged [51].The third author is a White cisgender woman with research experience related to engineeringgraduate students’ mental health. The fourth author is a White cisgender man with extensiveundergraduate teaching experience and research experience in cognitive human factors duringhis Ph.D. and, since then, design-based engineering education research focused on mid-yearengineering science courses. The third and four authors served as a point of triangulation,challenging the rigor of the data analysis processes and interpretation of the findings. All authorsengaged in discussions
they are housed, provided students with an overview of journey mappingmethods and modeled the journey mapping process using a persona the researchers developed.Participants were then asked to map their researcher identity development by semester. The mapswere designed to be completed in table form with columns for the semester, activity, emotionalresponse (ranging from very negative to very positive), and explanation of how this activitypromoted or hindered researcher identity development. (Figure 1 is a screenshot of a journeymap students created during the persona training session.) Figure 1: Sample journey map for a participant’s third semester in a doctoral program. Following this assignment, participants completed their individual
aspiration—evolves over time is more limited [28,31,33]. The dynamic natureof this development process requires longitudinal investigation [1,32,34].Theoretical FrameworkThis study employs Future Possible Selves (FPS) theory [8–10] to examine students’longitudinal development. FPS posits that people’s motivations are shaped by their visions ofpotential future selves, who they might or want to become. The theory emphasizes three factorsinfluencing motivation: connectedness (how strongly individuals link current actions to futureidentities), congruence (alignment between current and desired identities), and perception ofdifficulty (assessment of barriers to achieving desired identities). The framework's emphasis ontemporal development and multiple
adaptation process progressed, we systematically aligned the COMM-FLOWS tool itemswith both the theoretical framework guiding the study and the lived communication experiencesof graduate students. This alignment was essential to ensure that the tool accurately captured therealities of communication in graduate education while remaining grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT). To achieve this, we conducted an item-construct mapping toconfirm SDT alignment, cross-checked items against graduate student communicationexperiences, and revised or eliminated items that did not fit theoretical expectations or practicalapplications. This process ensured that the COMM-FLOWS tool authentically reflected thevoices of graduate students while maintaining its
Assessment Committee at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE).Prof. Paul Conway FREng CEng, Loughborough University Prof. Paul P Conway CEng, SMIEEE, FIMechE is Dean of the Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering and Distinguished Professor of Manufacturing Processes at Loughbor- ough University, UK. He is currently Principle Investigator and Chair of the Executive for the UK’s Engi- neering & Physical Sciences Research Council’s (EPSRC) Centre for Doctoral Training in Embedded In- telligence and was Director of EPSRC’s National Innovative Electronics Manufacturing Research Centre (2004-2015). His research includes: materials processing; integration of electronics, sensors and