Socio‐technical thinking of students and practitioners in the context of humanitarian engineering

Abstract

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.

Engineering student perceptions of social justice in a feedback control systems course

“…For focus group and interview transcripts, the data analysis method used in this study aligned with the Inductive Analysis Model proposed by Hatch (2002), which draws loosely from multiple qualitative research methods and traditions, including grounded theory, constructivism, and others (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Spradley, 1979, 1980). Other engineering education research has used inductive analysis to understand participant responses (e.g., Mazzurco & Daniel, 2020). As in other such approaches, inductive thinking moves from specific transcript data to general themes (which Hatch calls domains;Hatch, 2002).…”

Empathic approaches in engineering capstone design projects: student beliefs and reported behaviour

“…The accreditation of undergraduate engineering programs requires that students develop an ability to 'meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare' (ABET 2020, 2). Without learning how to consider diverse perspectives for social and humanitarian purposes, engineering students risk failing to understand the design implications on people and the broader context (Mazzurco and Daniel 2020).…”

Reauthoring Engineering Identities as Belonging to a Community Engaged Profession

“…For some students, the role of community partners seemed to be crucial for supporting the master narrative that engineers, through their rarefied skillset, come to the space of community problems with more expertise than community stakeholders and should be lauded for their solutions. Such a pattern aligns with findings from existing research that critiques engineering problem-solving as a method that does not give space to engage in the social complexity of design challenges [26,27]. However, we also recognize that the validation received from community partners could play a functional purpose in helping engineering students author their paths as community-engaged professionals.…”