Classical paradigms versus complexity thinking in engineering education: an essential discussion in the education for sustainable development

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to discuss how the theory of complex thinking can be considered an interesting element in engineering education, especially in the context in which challenges toward sustainable development are multidisciplinary. Design/methodology/approach This viewpoint synthesizes the main reflections and discussions generated during a process of debate, research and creation of a proposal for an undergraduate engineering course at a higher education institution in Brazil. The literature on engineering education, sustainability and complexity was considered in an integrated way. Debates were conducted considering the authors’ knowledge and experience as professors of engineering courses and researchers in the field of sustainability. A qualitative and reflexive approach was used to organize the main discussions. Findings The prevailing classical engineering paradigm trains professionals to think from a Cartesian, reductionist perspective, appropriate for solving well-structured problems with known solution paths and convergent answers. However, addressing sustainability challenges requires a different kind of thinking capable of dealing with situations characterized by uncertainty, emergence and incompleteness of knowledge. Complexity thinking can be useful for this purpose as it provides a broad system approach to deal with ill-defined, ill-structured and unpredictable problems. This study can be understood as a call to researchers and professionals to consider the value and importance of complexity thinking to advance engineering education for sustainability. Originality/value The need to overcome the limits of the classical engineering paradigm is emphasized in the context of sustainability. Complex thinking is considered as a path toward a paradigm shift in engineering education for sustainability. It can contribute to the training of professionals to face pressing challenges now and in the future. This viewpoint provides some insights to enhance debates on education engineering.

Which complexity? A review of typologies and a framework proposal for characterizing complexity-based approaches

“…It is worth noting that the clear division in the third generation into two theoretical groups, as proposed by Alhadeff-Jones (2008), continues to the present day (Sigahi et al, 2023;Woermann et al, 2018;Yolles, 2019a) and bears similarities with previous discussions about the typologies proposed by Maguire et al (2006) (see section 3.5) and Morin (2007) (see section 3.10).…”

“…It is worth noting that the clear division in the third generation into two theoretical groups, as proposed by Alhadeff-Jones (2008), continues to the present day (Sigahi et al. , 2023; Sigahi and Sznelwar, 2022; Woermann et al.…”

“…For Weaver (1948), this was precisely the fundamental gap that science should address in the next 50 years. More than 70 years after this statement, scholars have still pointed out that this gap remains (Byrne and Callaghan, 2014; Morin, 2010; Sigahi et al. , 2023).…”

“…As a result, conjunctive or relational approaches emerged with the goal of providing more integrated forms of explanation of phenomena. According to Tsoukas (2017), when it comes to practical approaches, relational thinking becomes fundamental, because the abstraction of complexities from the real world (disjunctive approach) can lead to the neglect of important aspects, causing harm to people, the environment, organizations and society (see Sigahi and Sznelwar (2022) and Sigahi et al. (2023), for a more in-depth discussion about the externalities of disjunctive approaches).…”

Simulation-Based Engineering of Heterogeneous Collaborative Systems—A Novel Conceptual Framework

“…The need to overcome the limits of the classical engineering paradigm is emphasized in the context of sustainability and education for sustainability [52]. The sustainability issue in systems development emerges from the unachieved goals of previous industrial revolutions (4.0) and the projection of future ones (5.0), moving the focus to the cooperation of human and automated intelligent systems [53].…”