AC 2011-1369: USING BOUNDARY NEGOTIATING ARTIFACTS TO IN-VESTIGATE INTERDISCIPLINARY AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMSKacey Beddoes, Virginia Tech Kacey Beddoes is a Ph.D. student in Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech. Her current research interests are interdisciplinary studies of gender and engineering education and international en- gineering education. She serves as Managing Editor of Engineering Studies. She is also co-editor of What is Global Engineering Education For? The Making of International Educators, and Assistant Editor of the Global Engineering series from Morgan & Claypool publishers.Maura J. Borrego, Virginia Tech Maura Borrego is an Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering
Paper ID #13207From Sacred Cow to Dairy Cow: Challenges and Opportunities in Integrat-ing of Social Justice in Engineering Science CoursesDr. Juan C. Lucena, Colorado School of Mines Juan Lucena is Professor and Director of Humanitarian Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines (CSM). Juan obtained a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies (STS) from Virginia Tech and a MS in STS and BS in Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). His books include Defending the Nation: U.S. Policymaking to Create Scientists and Engineers from Sputnik to the ’War Against Terrorism’ (University
used in other disciplines, and more focused on technological solutions. Materialtaught in engineering courses on sustainability tends toward the quantitative. Mainstreamdefinitions such as that put forward by the Bruntland Commission2 are presented with little timefocused on dissenting definitions.3 Environmental justice considerations are largely absent,despite clear relevance to engineering. 4As part of a community based learning grant funded by Campus Compact, members of theEngineering, Social Justice, and Peace network developed learning modules for engineering corecourses that addressed different aspects of social justice issues.5 One of the modules I developedas part of that project explored the class dimensions of Life Cycle Assessment
University Press.15. Downey, G., & Lucena, J. (1997). Engineering selves. In Downey, G. and Dumit, J. (Eds.), Cyborgs and citadels (117-142). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.16. Lagesen, V. A. & Sørensen, K. H. (2009). Walking the line? The enactment of the social/technical binary in software engineering. Engineering Studies, 1(2), 129-149.17. Huff, J. L. (2014). Psychological journeys of engineering identity from school to the workplace: How students become engineers among other forms of self. Retrieved from ProQuest (3669254).18. Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1994). Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.19. Downey, G. (2005
Human Development specializing in Educational Technology Leadership. Her work focuses on projects that measure and assess student perceptions of learning related to their experiences with engineering course innovations. She is a faculty development consultant with previous experience in instructional design and instructor of the Graduate Assistant Seminar for engineering teaching assistants. Page 22.906.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Integrating Ethics into Undergraduate Environmental Science and Economics Education Abstract Good
. Bucciarellii, L. (2003). Engineering Philosophy. Delft University Press. Delft. 6. Downey, G. L., J.C. Lucena, and C. Mitcham. (2007). Engineering Ethics and Identity: Emerging Initiatives in Comparative Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13(4), 463-487. 7. Goldman, S. L. (2004). Why We Need a Philosophy of Engineering: A Work in Progress. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 29(2):163-176. 8. Lewin, D. (1983). Engineering Philosophy – The Third Culture. Leonardo. 16(2), 127-132. 9. Moser, F. (1997). Philosophy of/and engineering. An Introduction to and Survey of the Engineering and Technology Problems for the 21st century. Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Quarterly. 11(1), 1-5. 10
alternative solutions that may ease tensions at issue.Many engineering projects in the U.S. are sources of political conflict, e.g. disputes over thelocation of wind farms; the technology for, and unintended consequences of, extracting naturalgas from shale formations; environmental effects of mining projects; location and risks of off-shore oil drilling; new pipeline location and environmental risks. Although such disputes canreach fever pitch, they have rarely ended in violent conflict, thanks to the country’s strongtraditions and institutions for legal and legislative conflict resolution. In many developingcountries, by contrast, groups that viewed their vital interests at stake in engineering decisionshave sometimes resorted to violence to
educationprofessionals to improve delivery and assessment is ongoing, and processes to promotetransferability of research findings are under development.References: 1. American Society for Mechanical Engineering web site, accessed May 6, 2014: “Washington Policy Report May 2013.” 2. FEDERAL SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) EDUCATION 5-YEAR STR ATEGIC PLAN, A Report from the Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council, May 2013 3. National Academy of Engineering (2014), Making a World of Difference, National Academies Press. 4. National Academy of Engineering, Grand Challenges for Engineering, www.engineeringchallenges.org, updated 9/2013. 5. Johnson, Steven (2012). Future Perfect