Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:21:47.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW AND WHY INSTRUCTORS INCLUDE AND EXCLUDE SOCIAL, POLICY, AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGN EDUCATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Madhurima Das ,
Jana I. Saadi ,
Marina Santos ,
Gillian Roeder ,
Anastasia K. Ostrowski ,
Stella Lee ,
Cynthia Breazeal ,
Catherine D'Ignazio ,
Maria Yang  and
Aditi Verma
Madhurima Das*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Jana I. Saadi
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Marina Santos
Affiliation:
Wellesley College;
Gillian Roeder
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Anastasia K. Ostrowski
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Stella Lee
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University;
Cynthia Breazeal
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Catherine D'Ignazio
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Maria Yang
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Aditi Verma
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
*
Das, Madhurima, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States of America, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Design and engineering are socio-technical enterprises used to solve real-world problems. However, students in these fields are often under-equipped to consider the ethical and societal implications of their work. Our prior work showed that these societal considerations are more consistently embedded in design pedagogy in non-engineering than in engineering courses at MIT. Here, we examine underlying causes for this through a survey of instructors (231 courses from 29 departments). The main contribution of this work is an analysis of whether and how instructors incorporate social, ethical, and policy considerations in design pedagogy. The majority of respondents (60.6%) included these topics in their courses, primarily through discussion of social justice, identity groups, and ethics. These concepts were included more in non-engineering courses (65.8%) than engineering courses (46.9%). Many instructors, especially in engineering, cited irrelevance as the reason for not engaging with these topics in their courses (86.1% compared to 44.2% in non-engineering). We suggest that instructors question this perception and use the examples provided as a starting point to explore integration of these concepts into their technical content.

Keywords

Design educationSocial responsibilityEthicsEquityJustice
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2085 - 2094
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

ABET. (2020), “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2020 – 2021 | ABET”, available at: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/ (accessed 20 November 2022).Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2001), “Human Dignity and Human Rights: Thoughts on the Principles of Human-Centered Design”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P.H. (1990), “Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination”, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020), Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need, The MIT Press, available at:https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. and Cross, A.C. (1998), “Expertise in engineering design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, M., Ostrowski, A.K., Ben-David, S., Roeder, G.J., Kimura, K., D'Ignazio, C., Breazeal, C., et al. (2022), “Auditing design justice: The impact of social movements on design pedagogy at a technology institution”, presented at the DTRS13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, M., Roeder, G., Ostrowski, A.K., Yang, M.C. and Verma, A. (2022), “What Do We Mean When We Write About Ethics, Equity, and Justice in Engineering Design?”, Volume 6: 34th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM), available at:https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2022-87373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dizikes, P. (2022), “MIT Morningside Academy for Design created as a new hub for cross-disciplinary education, research, and innovation | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology”, MIT News, available at: https://news.mit.edu/2022/morningside-academy-design-0314 (accessed 20 November 2022).Google Scholar
Gelles, L.A., Mejia, J.A., Lord, S.M., Hoople, G.D. and Chen, D.A. (2021), “Is It All about Efficiency? Exploring Students’ Conceptualizations of Sustainability in an Introductory Energy Course”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 13, p. 7188, doi: 10.3390/su13137188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J.A. and Lucena, J.C. (2014), “Social Justice: A Missing, Unelaborated Dimension in Humanitarian Engineering and Learning Through Service”, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(LSPIRG), L.S.P.I.R.G. (n.d.). “Know The Land Territories Campaign”, available at: http://www.lspirg.org/knowtheland (accessed 23 November 2022).Google Scholar
Magney, J. and Bucciarelli, L.L. (1995), “Designing Engineers”, Technology and Culture, Vol. 36 No. 4, p. 1030.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, A.K., Walker, R., Das, M., Yang, M., Breazeal, C., Park, H.W. and Verma, A. (2022), “Ethics, Equity, & Justice in Human-Robot Interaction: A Review and Future Directions”, 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Vol. 00, pp. 969–976.Google Scholar
Riley, D. (2008), “Engineering and Social Justice”, Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology and Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, D. (2012), “Engineering Thermodynamics and 21st Century Energy Problems, A textbook companion for student engagement”, Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2021), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.Google Scholar
Verma, A. and Djokić, D. (2021), “Reimagining Nuclear Engineering”, Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 64–69.Google Scholar