2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Beyond the Performance of Quality: Arguments and Advice for Making Meaningful Contributions in Engineering Education Research

Engineering education research (EER) writing has come to emphasize technical rigor and quality of research methods and required paper sections (e.g., positionality, lit review, quality measures, sampling, recruitment, limitations, etc.). This underlying emphasis persisted regardless of prominent critiques of rigor and pivots in terminology. While higher quality research writing has helped the field progress in building knowledge, the “technically” rigorous work of academic research methods is positioned above the collectively “social” work of scholars communicating about education. This positioning encourages box-checking without a clear, purposeful argument.

Rather than rigor and quality, we offer two parallel ways to think about research writing: “purpose” as the underlying reason for writing and the aim of the work, and “contribution” as the extent to which the knowledge and understanding of the topic has shifted (aligned with the paper’s purpose). Purpose is selected by the writer, while contribution is assessed by the reader.

For the two coauthors in our roles as readers, reviewers, and editors, contribution is the primary criterion we read for. We can overlook the idiosyncrasies of the typical EER paper content if the overall argument is compelling. Perhaps that stems from our interdisciplinary backgrounds—outside of EER are many compelling contributions to knowledge that do not adhere to EER journal format. Some papers just argue, others just inspire, many don’t even have methods sections. Having 100% of the necessary component parts of a research paper is neither necessary nor sufficient for creating an important contribution.

To illustrate the concept, we offer a metaphor of taking the reader on a journey with the writing, starting from the knowledge on the subject at the current moment. We travel from there via each section of the paper, arriving back up near the top to the purpose/premise, but some distance further to the right. That additional distance we moved from the starting point is the measure of the work’s contribution.

If a paper author starts from the premise (as many in EER do) that there needed to be more work on a subject, and by the end of the paper they have concluded that the research added an additional study—that is an incremental contribution. If the paper traverses further intellectual distance, providing the reader with insight, convincing, persuading, elucidating, inspiring, etc.— that is a transformative contribution. While not every paper needs to make a transformative contribution, we think aiming towards it is more worthy of our collective discipline’s time and energy.

The metaphor helps authors think from a reader’s perspective and help them remember or imagine what a reader knows and understands, what they don’t, what’s convincing for them, and what’s exciting for them. Thinking in this way can help writing become more accessible, cohesive, and compelling.

Our paper will make the case for this shift in focus, model the approach through illustrative examples, and provide guidance to authors, particularly early career researchers. We hope this attempt at an EER cultural redirection will help researchers keep the social elements of compelling scholarly communication integrated with and yet primary, above technical methodological rigor.