Review of literature for synthesis paper

Hi all- I was looking through my notes on the literature and our class discussions; I found some interesting thoughts that I'd like to share.

After reading Layton-Why do other people seem surprised and impressed when I tell them I am in the engineering field?  Does anyone else experience this?  Is it because I am female and white?  Why do people view engineering with such prestige?

Is there a public figure for engineering?  Is this why there is uncertainty among children of what engineering is? 

After reading Gieryn-Boundary work, it is a tool for thinking.  Does it help explain my role in this thing called engineering education?  Does it enable change?

Seely-Is there a good balance between shop culture and school culture?  How do we balance this in engineering labs?

Everyone is NOT an engineer. 

ENE in the Wild

I will be ovserving the Freshmen intro course:  ENGR 195 on October 28, 2009 from 9.30am-10.20am in ARMS B061

:)

Philosophy Overload :)

Seeley discusses American engineering education in the 1900s and introduces a historian's ideas of shop culture and school culture.  This comparison to me brings up the issue of balancing theory and practice.  I thought it was very interesting that this debate is still being researched more than 100 years later.  This seems to relate to philosophy of education and the questions from Plato's time that are still being discussed.  It seems that for centuries, philosophers have been researching the same topics, but a definite "solution" has not been reached.

Is there an "optiminal" definition of education or even engineering that can be concluded from all of these readings?  We are reading different philosophies of education and engineering to help us understand our own philosophy, but all of the contradicting beliefs from philosophers is beginning to confuse me.

Just looking for some feedback

I had a lot of trouble understanding the different views of analytic philosophy. Noddings stated that many educational philosophers consider themselves analytic philosophers by being engaged in conceptual analysis. She also stated that philosophers cannot effectively set aside their values while then engage in analysis. I believe this to be true and a very interesting thought. I pose a question (hoping for feedback), is it better as a researcher to confess your values and base your studies on them or try to research without them?

I was exposed to this type of analysis during my masters program in a qualitative research class. This was discussed but referred to as 'subjective lenses' by Corrine Glesne in Becoming Qualitative Researchers. She expresses embracing the different values and calls them "Subjective I's".

I was wondering about other views on including personal subjectivity into research. Does anyone thing this is good? Or inevitable perhaps. Maybe it is bad?