Shanna R. Daly

Representations of engineering work in the curriculum influence students’ perceptions of valued skills and knowledge in the field. Industrial engineering attracts a diverse group of students and is well positioned to incorporate longstanding calls for comprehensive skills because of its systems-level approach to problem-solving. Examining students’ perceptions of the curriculum of industrial engineering can elucidate how the curriculum shapes diverse students’ understandings of engineering practice and their decisions to persist or leave. Using Holland’s framework of figured worlds, we examined the role of the core industrial engineering curriculum at a Midwestern university (MU) in the United States (U.S.) in shaping undergraduate students’ perceptions of valued skills and knowledge and sense of fit in engineering. Findings from a series of two interviews with 15 upper and lower division industrial engineering students indicate that students perceived the core curriculum at MU to minimally emphasize comprehensive skills, reinforcing a purely technical view of engineering. Further, students expressed a desire for course content that emphasized application of theoretical concepts and social and cultural context and impact. Findings indicate a continuing need for curricular reform incorporating comprehensive skills to engage students, align coursework with real-world engineering practice, and shape the perception of engineering work as inherently sociotechnical.

Engineering design applications that emphasize positive societal impacts are growing in popularity, yet often overlook the critical importance of engineering designers’ and stakeholders’ positionalities – their unique identities, experiences and resulting perspectives and social positions relative to others – in shaping design decisions. Insufficient attention to positionality can limit designers’ abilities to navigate complex problem contexts, engage diverse perspectives and address power dynamics, ultimately constraining the effectiveness and equity of design outcomes. However, little is known about how designers conceptualize and account for positionality in practice, particularly in the early stages of design when problem framing decisions are made. Therefore, this study explored how 10 engineering students and 10 practitioners conceptualized positionality in the initial stages of design for “social good,” where its impacts are especially pronounced. Each participant engaged in a written reflection and semistructured interview. Key findings include limitations in participants’ available language and strategies for accounting for positionality in design processes, particularly in the early stages, and that participants’ learning about positionality was largely driven by exposure to diverse identities and contexts. These insights highlight the limitations of engineering training and skillsets in design-for-social-good and emphasize the need for strategic, intentional consideration of positionality in design practice and education.

Background: Understanding instructors’ perspectives that shape their decision making related to integrating societal content in their courses is key to informing efforts to ensure engineering training prepares students with the skills and knowledge necessary to account for both technical and social dimensions of complex engineering problems. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study examines the varied ways instructors think about the relevance of societal content to engineering courses and how, if at all, it can or should be integrated in their courses. Design/Method: Drawing on interviews with 21 instructors across 11 engineering departments, we leveraged a composite narrative analysis approach to present nuanced descriptions of the narratives articulated by instructors about their decisions related to the integration of societal content in their courses. Results: Our findings describe five composite narratives that highlight a range of perspectives informing instructors’ decisions about the integration of societal content, ranging from a belief that societal content has no place in engineering coursework to a belief that societal content is inherent in and a necessary consideration for all engineering work. Conclusions: Instructors’ narratives made evident the ways in which technocentric values about engineering work shape decisions about what is taught in engineering courses and how societal content is often weighed against, rather than connected to, technical engineering science content. While many instructors discussed the relevance of societal considerations in engineering, they also described a need for greater support in efforts to implement societal content in their courses.