Salt Lake City, Utah
June 23, 2018
June 23, 2018
July 27, 2018
Community Engagement Division
Although a core value in engineering is to broadly “benefit” society, the branch of the profession called Learning Through Service (LTS) promotes specifically the teaching of engineering through collaborative, respectful, and mutually beneficial relationships with “the public.” Guided by a theoretical framework of “social imaginaries,” this paper sets out to explore what officially sanctioned LTS conceptualizations of “the public” are, and whether and how these conceptualizations differ from conceptualizations of “the public” in “mainstream” engineering. The premise of this research is that how LTS practitioners conceive of “the public” likely informs their conceptions of self, professional duty, professional right, and work with communities; and that knowing what imaginaries of “the public” LTS education fosters is important for throwing into relief ideologies that may inform the critical, but often unseen and unstated, boundary between LTS and society.
Results are provided from a content analysis of 14 engineering documents, chosen for their representational value vis-à-vis the engineering profession’s identity, priorities, vision, and perceived relationship with society. The documents include National Academy of Engineering reports, ABET accreditation criteria, disciplinary “Bodies of Knowledge,” engineering codes of ethics, and organizational/programmatic brochures. Qualitative data analysis was used to identify prevalent themes in representations of “the public” across all documents. Emerging codes were broadly categorized into six themes: a) characterizations of “the public,” b) professional duties related to “the public,” c) relationship between engineers and “the public,” d) societal problems in need of engineering solutions, e) engineers' social footprint over time, and f) vision or mission statements. In LTS documents, the three most prevalent codes all fell under the third theme, “relationship between engineers and ‘the public.’” They were that engineers a) benefit “the public,” b) relate to “the public” in a collaborative way, and c) have a significant impact on the work of professionals outside engineering. The first of these three codes – that engineers benefit “the public” – was the most prevalent, by far. References to “the public” as unable to meet its basic needs, engineers as problem solvers, and engineers as benefitting the public were more common in LTS than in “mainstream” engineering documents.
The paper closes with a discussion about the potential implications of our findings for both the LTS community and the “mainstream” engineering community, as well as the diverse publics that the engineering profession aims to serve. We view our findings as a step toward deeper understanding about how the LTS community’s construction of “the public” might enhance or weaken engineering practice and, ultimately, how it might support or undermine LTS engineers’ commitment to promote the social good.
Canney, N. E., & Lambrinidou, Y. (2018, June), Representations of 'The Public' in Learning Through Service (LTS) Versus 'Mainstream' Engineering Foundational Professional Documents Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--30932
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2018 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015