contact with the chairman of the Board with a view to carrying out further research in this
area (see Section 8).
(2) We have had extensive discussions with engineering educators at University College
London and the Open University, with a view to developing project proposals that will
build on the results of this project (see also Section 8).
3. Methods
As specified in the proposal, the methodology progressed through four phases. These are
considered in order.
Phase 1: Documentary analysis and introduction to the engineering firm
(Months 1-2)
At the outset, we approached a large, multidisciplinary civil and building engineering
consultancy firm and established a working relationship with a director of the firm (D).
During this phase we developed an audit of the ‘visible mathematics’ of engineering
practice within the firm, the components of practice that formed the shared assumptions
of engineers within it. This included documentary study of:
• standard engineering, and engineering mathematics, texts
• literature on engineering design
• common software employed, focusing on the specialism of structural engineering.
We conducted a series of interviews with academics (some face-to-face, some on the
telephone, and some by email), to elicit expert commentary on our findings from the
documentary study.
We were fortunate to establish from the beginning a positive relationship with D, who
provided access to different areas of the firm, and secured the cooperation of a wide range
of engineers. Throughout the project we held regular discussions with D to evaluate our
findings formatively, and to re-negotiate who and where to observe and interview next.
We decided in phase 1 to look beyond the general, visible mathematics of engineering
design — which was originally intended for phase 2 — by carrying out a set of informal,
exploratory interviews with structural engineers at the firm. Our rationale was that we
wished to prepare the way for the observation (‘tracking’) phase, by gathering more
detailed knowledge about the working practice within the firm. As it turned out, we
learned a considerable amount about the general aspects of (structural) engineering
practice through these interviews.
Towards the middle of month two, we wrote a series of short memos that summarised the
interviews and identified emergent themes. As a result, we returned to a further interview
with D, after which we decided to make a major change to our proposed methodology. In
the proposal we stated that data from a single project over a period of months would form
the focus of the data collection. However, it now emerged that this, although feasible,
would not be the most productive route within the time frame of the project. Our concerns
were twofold. First, to focus on only one or two particular design projects might not
provide a representative sampling of engineering design practice within the firm, even
within the specialism of structural engineering. Second, we were advised that although
project meetings could be made available to us, it might not be profitable to spend so