Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Deanna H. Matthews, Carnegie Mellon University; H. Scott Matthews, Carnegie Mellon University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

!1processes. This information is becoming more important to consumers and decision-makers in industry, society, and government worldwide. These performancemeasurements have been achieved through development of metrics and methods toconsider use of energy and other material and resource inputs, as well as outputs such asair and water emissions and releases like wastes. A relatively recent component of thisperformance assessment has included consideration of sustainability, which is oftenbroadly defined as the ability of current generations to meet their needs withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs [1]. Sustainability hasmore colloquially been defined as the interaction of economic, environmental, and socialfactors

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

John R. Reisel, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

issues as well.IntroductionWhile the institution of tenure in higher education is often seen as a permanent fixture, in recentyears there have been movements in various states to at least weaken tenure protections, and insome cases eliminate tenure protections for faculty in public universities. For example, in early2017, legislators in both Iowa and Missouri introduced bills that would have in some formeliminated tenure in the state universities [1-3]. Those who support such measures oftenquestion why faculty at universities should have a “job for life”. Yet, at most institutions, facultycan be removed from a tenured position for just cause [4]. Another reason given for eliminatingtenure is to give universities greater flexibility in developing

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Andrew Katz, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Donna M. Riley, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

The 1970s were a tumultuous decade for American economic policy. Events like the oilcrises in 1973 and 1979, the U.S. withdrawal from the Bretton Woods monetary agreement, andstagflation - the combination of low economic growth, high unemployment, and high inflationrates - began to cast doubt upon the incumbent Keynesian economic policy paradigm [1, p. 372],[2, p. 20], [3]. Beginning in this decade, both domestic and international economic policy beganto shift away from accepting a role for the government in shaping economic policy and toward aminimized role focused on ensuring proper market functioning and little else. This retraction ofgovernment regulation and intervention came under the name of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism isbroadly

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sarah Bouazzaoui, Old Dominion University; Charles B. Daniels, Old Dominion University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

Sarah Bouazzaoui Charles B Daniels, PhD Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Old Dominion University AbstractIn the United States of America, public policies and public decision making associated with theengineering field are set by individuals who does not possess expertise and knowledge to carry outthese tasks [1]. Most of decision makers are lawyers and social scientists, not engineers [2]. Thepurpose of this paper is to analyze the various factors which either encourage or inhibit engineersfrom influencing and participating in public policy. In this study, a grounded theory approach willbe followed, data will be collected

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Huiming Fan, East China University of Science and Technology

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

each other as well as the changing period where the globaleconomic pattern will change profoundly along with the rise and fall of regional economicpowers [1]. The “superposition of the three periods” provides an important strategicopportunity for the accelerating development, transformation and upgrading of themanufacturing industry. From 2011 to 2013, the US has successively announced the launch ofAdvanced Manufacturing Partnership, A National Strategic Plan for AdvancedManufacturing and National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. In 2013, Germanreleased Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. Later,Japan released White Paper on Manufacturing Industry in 2014; Britain released the strategyof Made in UK 2015

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

R. Alan Cheville, Bucknell University; John Heywood, Trinity College Dublin; Charles James Larkin, Trinity College Dublin; Shaen Corbet, Dublin City University

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

education and the rising costs of college. The model was based upon alternativestructures of credentialing and financing as a response to these potential pressures. Thecurricular model proposes restructuring engineering degree program towards: 1) shorterundergraduate programs that focus on developing horizontal transfer of knowledge ratherthan in-depth disciplinary knowledge and 2) periodic in-depth “educational renewal”throughout an individual’s career. This structure is grounded by, and emerges from,established models of liberal arts degree programs and is supported by decades of evidenceon the aspects of college which most impact long-term student development. From a policyperspective in order for such a disruptive model to have a chance of

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Daniel B. Oerther, Missouri University of Science & Technology

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

pursued byengineers to gain visibility, achieve relevance, and influence the public. The profession ofnursing offers three advantages as compared to the profession of engineering in terms ofeffective public engagement, including: 1) trust (i.e., Gallop shows nursing as the “most trusted”profession for 15 years running); 2) gender bias (i.e., the profession of nursing is primarilycomposed of females, which the engineering profession claims is an important target audiencefor marketing efforts); and 3) professionalism (i.e., the canons of ethics for nurses emphasize theimportance of the patient – and hence the value of the individual – while the canon of ethics forengineers emphasize the importance of the nameless “public” – and hence looses the

Conference Session

Engineering and Public Policy Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Rohit Kandakatla, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Angela Goldenstein, Purdue University, West Lafayette; David Allen Evenhouse, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Edward J. Berger, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Jeffrey F. Rhoads, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Jennifer Deboer, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering and Public Policy

Engineering.IntroductionScience, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educators continue to emphasizethe need to develop an academic climate that supports systematic innovation and change inengineering education [1]. Change strategies in undergraduate education may be categorized bytheir approach to transformation and by the impact they produce [2]. Transformations that impactan entire environment arise from far-reaching policy adjustments or from developing a sharedvision of the desired change, which are referred to as top-down or bottom-up approaches,respectively. However, top-down approaches to change have been demonstrated to be far lesseffective than bottom-up approaches [3]. To successfully implement organizational change, it isnecessary for all of the