Background Humanitarian engineering (HE) is rapidly emerging in universities and professional workplaces worldwide. In HE, socio‐technical thinking is fundamental as HE projects exist at the intersection of engineering and sustainable community development. However, the literature still lacks an understanding of the key features of socio‐technical thinking. Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of this article is to investigate the key characteristics that distinguish the socio‐technical thinking of an expert from a novice in the context of HE projects. Design/Method We distributed the Energy Conversion Playground (ECP) design task to students starting their engineering degree (n = 26) and practitioners (n = 16). We iteratively and inductively analyzed the responses to develop a rubric characterizing the key features of expert socio‐technical thinking. We then scored participants' responses and compared them to identify differences between students and practitioners. Results The analysis showed that expert socio‐technical thinkers can provide high‐quality considerations across three domains: technology, people, and broader context. The comparison of the participants' scores showed that both students and practitioners scored highly in the technology domain. In contrast, students scored poorly in the people and broader contexts domains, identifying only simplistic considerations in these non‐technical areas, if at all. Conclusions This study provides novel insights into the development of socio‐technical thinking and further validates the ECP as a trustworthy measure of socio‐technical thinking. Implications for engineering educators and multiple lines of future research are also discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Co-design is fundamental to humanitarian engineering and increasingly recognised as such in engineering curricula. However, it is challenging to teach, learn, and assess. In this paper we describe the development and validation of a scenario-based instrument to distinguish novice and expert approaches to codesign in the context of humanitarian engineering. The instrument assesses the extent to which respondents describe stakeholder participation in each of the scope, design, and deliver phases of the design process, with co-design experts taking a collaborative approach throughout. We analyse and compare responses to the instrument from first-year undergraduate engineering students and experienced humanitarian engineering practitioners. Implications for educators, to use this scenario-based assessment in their own research, teaching, and curriculum development, are discussed in detail.