Search

Critical Conversations are held by members of the greater Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace network in the activist tradition of reflecting on our public engagement and collectively discovering ways of deepening our action. The particpants are selected based on their submissions (Expressions of Interest) in response to the Call for Participation in the Critcial Conversations disseminated through the ESJP website (esjp.org). For years, we have gathered in locations immersed in nature. In 2018 and 2019, the gathering took place in Cala Munda, organized by Caroline Baillie and Eric Feinblatt, in the beautiful Catskills mountains in upstate New York in the U.S.A. We want to feel our connection with the land while we engage in critical conversations on the intersection of the engineering field with social justice and peace. Caroline Baillie facilitates these conversations employing forest pedagogy. Through this pedagogy, we open our hearts to the forest for seeking guidance on how our profession can help restore, heal, and serve people, planet, and life instead of its current practice of destroying, pillaging, and harming nature. In the throes of the coronavirus pandemic, the urgency of action was evident in 2020 like never before. On June 26 and 27, 2020, a group of up to 40 educators, researchers, activists, and field practitioners, from 4 continents, met virtually for the 4th Annual Critical Conversations – almost thrice as large as the 2018 and 2019 groups that met in-person. The virtual format allowed for broader participation – both in numbers as well as geographical locations. Though we were physically separated in the online gathering, situated in our respective modern, often disconnected-from-nature enclaves, our hearts and minds were engaged in envisioning transition to a just and egalitarian society. In keeping with the need of the moment, our focus was on brainstorming action projects that we can implement in the near future. The retreat facilitated the formation of action teams, which spent the summer discussing possible action items moving forward. These teams are now looking for a more permanent structure with team leaders, team members, an infrastructure, and social media presence. This is a call to action! We carried out these deliberations in an open-space format, wherein the agenda for the two days was set by the participants. In the two sessions on day one, using this participatory approach, we were able to sift six main themes that participants were interested in exploring in-depth. On day two, we divided ourselves into six teams and each team took a deeper dive into their theme of choice. Five of these teams have written summaries of their deliberations and proposed their Calls to Action for the engineering community, which we report below.

This paper reflects on the significance of ABET’s “maverick evaluators” and what it says about the limits of accreditation as a mode of governance in US engineering education. The US system of engineering education operates as a highly complex system, where the diversity of the system is an asset to robust knowledge production and the production of a varied workforce. ABET Inc., the principal accreditation agency for engineering degree programs in the US, attempts to uphold a set of professional standards for engineering education using a voluntary, peer-based system of evaluation. Key to their approach is a volunteer army of trained program evaluators (PEVs) assigned by the engineering professional societies, who serve as the frontline workers responsible for auditing the content, learning outcomes, and continuous improvement processes utilized by every engineering degree program accredited by ABET. We take a look specifically at those who become labeled “maverick evaluators” in order to better understand how this system functions, and to understand its limitations as a form of governance in maintaining educational quality and appropriate professional standards within engineering education. ABET was established in 1932 as the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development (ECPD). The Cold War consensus around the engineering sciences led to a more quantitative system of accreditation first implemented in 1956. However, the decline of the Cold War and rising concerns about national competitiveness prompted ABET to shift to a more neoliberal model of accountability built around outcomes assessment and modeled after total quality management / continuous process improvement (TQM/CPI) processes that nominally gave PEVs greater discretion in evaluating engineering degree programs. However, conflicts over how the PEVs exercised judgment points to conservative aspects in the structure of the ABET organization, and within the engineering profession at large. This paper and the phenomena we describe here is one part of a broader, interview-based study of higher education governance and engineering educational reform within the United States. We have conducted over 300 interviews at more than 40 different academic institutions and professional organizations, where ABET and institutional responses to the reforms associated with “EC 2000,” which brought outcomes assessment to engineering education, are extensively discussed. The phenomenon of so-called “maverick evaluators” reveal the divergent professional interests that remain embedded within ABET and the engineering profession at large. Those associated with Civil and Environmental Engineering, and to a lesser extent Mechanical Engineering continue to push for higher standards of accreditation grounded in a stronger vision for their professions. While the phenomenon is complex and more subtle than we can summarize in an abstract, “maverick evaluators” emerged as a label for PEVs who interpreted their role, including determinations about whether certain content “appropriate to the field of study,” utilizing professional standards that lay outside of the consensus position held by the majority of the member of the Engineering Accreditation Commission. This, conjoined with the engineers’ epistemic aversion to uncertainty and concerns about the legal liability of their decisions, resulted in a more narrow interpretation of key accreditation criteria. The organization then designed and used a “due-process” reviews process to discipline identified shortcomings in order to limit divergent interpretations. The net result is that the bureaucratic process ABET built to obtain uniformity in accreditation outcomes, simultaneously blunts the organization’s capacity to support varied interpretations of professional standards at the program level. The apparatus has also contributed to ABET’s reputation as an organization focused on minimum standards, as opposed to one that functions as an effective driver for further change in engineering education.

From audacious space missions and quantum physics, to clean cookstoves and coral nurseries, this year9s finalists for the AAAS/Suburu SB&F Prizes for Excellence in Science Books dare to go where few children9s titles have gone before. Sponsored by Subaru of America and facilitated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science ), the competition celebrates high-quality children9s science books. Read on for reviews written by the staff of the Science family of journals and a few friends.

This paper describes a sociocultural learning framework for classroom inclusion based on research in three interconnected areas: learner identity, classroom context, and engineering culture. This paper is intended to serve as a resource for CEE authors to incorporate research-based inclusive pedagogy into the design and implementation of their chemical engineering education efforts.

Since the United States’ National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges were first publicly articulated in 2008, engineering educators have used its ideas to motivate their work. While there is a sense of moral imperative around pursuing selected Challenges, work that critically examines the ethics of the Grand Challenges has so far been rare. In this paper, examining the process surrounding the framing of the Grand Challenges generates a series of ethical questions about both the specifics of the Challenges and the processes that gave rise to them. A Grand Challenges lesson plan for classroom implementation focuses students on the ethics of problem framing, and the consideration of social justice questions as an integral part of professional ethics.