The main emphasis of the work was to look at engineering education at universities in the UK, Sweden and Canada and consider how engineering can promote social change. This project explored the nature of the engineering education at the undergraduate University level and explores what it means to engineering faculty, what are their perceptions of social change and social justice in light of their curriculum. One of the main issues in this project was to understand how what faculty said about issues such as social change and responsibilities related to what is taught to students, i.e. espoused theories and theories in use. Engineering and the education of engineers, like a number of disciplines, constantly undergoes reviews of the curriculum taught within higher education institutions. Higher education expert Barnett considers critiquing a discipline to be an implicit part of its ongoing inherent character to ensure its longevity. This is especially important in the age of mass higher education and the pressures students and universities alike are under as result of the increased numbers.
The three countries were chosen to explore if accreditation affects these ‘softer’ social issues inclusion in the degree programme. Accredited programmes of engineering in the UK and North America are certified by the relevant professional body for each engineering discipline. The UK and Canadian engineering council accredit engineering programmes that enable students to practise and subsequently register within their professional institutions. However, the practise in Sweden is not so tightly controlled and each university has more autonomy over curriculum with an element of state overseeing aspects of the programmes, although some branches of engineering need to gain qualifications from their respective professional bodies.
Data for this project was collected through one-one interviews with engineering faculty. All the interviews are then fully transcribed and then analysed. The analysis removes the persons interviewed from the equation and concentrates on what is said, not who said it. This approach has been used extensively in higher education research to reveal the different ways students and teachers’ approaches teaching and learning. Responses from all the participants are clustered into themes; the number of themes emerges during the process and is not defined by the researcher. Within any one group there may exist a variation in the way the participants describe certain aspects of the theme of the group.
An initial analysis of the results yields seven themes;
· Purpose of Higher education
· role of Engineers in Society
· Social Responsibility in the Engineering curriculum,
· Social Justice/Social Responsibility,
· Accreditation and curriculum design
· Who is the customer of engineering education
· Value
The initial analyses of the data suggests that espoused theories of engineering and engineering education are for some very different to theories in use. This was clearly highlighted around the notion of the place of values in Engineering Education. It is not ‘their’ role to preach values, however when asked about social justice and an engineers role in society all described ‘value’ laden responses. Participants described education for empowering the students as well as getting jobs and the impact of mass higher education on students’ motivation to learn. Some also bemoaned the lack of these softer (social aspects) options in the courses whilst others were concerned there was too much, however all described the positive roles of engineers in society; and how engineers can act as a catalyst for change in society, to better humanity. Ultimately it seems that these ‘softer’ aspects to an engineer are part of the hidden curriculum for engineering students.
There seems to be much greater scope to explore the role of values not just within engineering education but across the whole higher education sector. It appears that these ‘softer’ aspects of social responsibility are for an engineer are part of the hidden curriculum for engineering students. Social responsibility here is considered to be not just about building safe objects and using environmentally sustainable materials and techniques, this should be a given for engineering, but to consider if the artefact should have even be built in the first place
Are other discipline engaging in similar forward looking critiques focusing on promoting social justice for all, i.e. elimination of poverty and water and food for all when such ‘big-picture’ thinking appears to be off the curriculum? What type of society are we building towards and what role does higher education have in supporting it?