Q&A for Session 2 (Juan and Jen’s presentation)

Posted on by

Doug: The engineers have supplied to the business community a reason for reducing smoke in their own terms. But it doesn't actually deal with the exploitive nature of those businesses. You shouldn't reduce smoke just because it makes business sense.

Peter: The business case solution doesn't provide a long-term solution. But we should ask ourselves if it works towards justice right now? It's not a great long-term or complete solution, but it works towards that goal. 
Jen: There's a tension in the case of Rico between the community and the greater community of those who will be supplied with the electricity.
Donna: Energy deregulation in the US has caused many problems. You have deregulation without competition so energy is very expensive and controlled by monopolies. 
Jen: Rico is not a wealth community so they could not run a energy coop like some other communities in Colorado.
Lily: I'm from Engineers against Poverty and we work to make the "business case" in the developing world because we think it's important.
Arias: I'd love to see more of these histories but I think engineers sometimes concentrate too much on the technical fix and not enough in defining the problem.
Darko: I think we need to make the business case because they won't change unless you force them to by showing that they can't afford to. 
Jon: I feel that one theme running in all these comments is the "triple bottom line" (social, environmental, economic). In some case studies, one or more of these factors are considered more than others. 
Caroline: I think we've spent too much time thinking of the economic factor. We, as a community, need to be more worried about the social and environmental. Then maybe….maybe….we can talk about economics. We need to actually critique this economic factor much more. I want to smash the triple bottom line because it's not easy equal categories. It's more a muddle.

Session 2 (Friday)

Posted on by
Jen presented her work with a community group in Rico, United States developing geothermal energy sources. It's some recent work that shes gotten involved with just this past summer. 

She started her presentation by talking about our current energy moment in which coal accounts for 49% of our energy production and renewables account for 3% while energy consumption seems to be going up. What is our future look like then with respect to energy? 
To answer this question, Jen looked at historical models of energy extraction. For example, oil was extracted in a model that valued speed, optimization of extraction, profit, privately-owned. In her new project, Jen sees the possibility of a new model of energy extraction that values community. 
Citizens of Rico are concerned with where the profits will go, where the energy will go, who will own the system. 
Engineers and Industrial Smoke
Juan asked the question if social justice and engineering are incompatible fields? If so, are there moments in history where engineers were concerned with justice? Juan points to the Progressive Era (1880-1920) in the United States an an example of the moment. He drew from various histories such as David Stradling's "Smokestacks and Progressives". 
Through David's history and other histories, Juan found out how smoke was associated with industrialization and progress during the rapidly industrializing Progressive Era. Of course, this smoke led to environmental pollution and health problems. Engineers were not concerned with it until women's groups began to define the problem for engineers and physicians. By the mid 1910s, engineers began to agree that the smoke problem has technical fixes and smoke control can make business more efficient. During this moment, engineers began to equate efficiency (smoke reduction) with profits. In this way, engineers were legitimized (at least in  the eyes of industrialists) as researchers. 
Juan concluded his presentation by asking if:
  • When engineers perform technical work in terms of efficiency, are they being agents of social justice?
  • Could we look at other existing stories of engineers in similar ways? What would be their political function in the classroom?
  • In the process of defining a problem and its solution from lay to expert terms, non-engineers are marginalized. What does that mean for engineers interested in justice?

Engineers Against Poverty Panel (cont.)

Posted on by

Meena: Caste system in India is social inequity reinforced by structural, cultural, and religious inequity. The job of Dalits is to collect feces. How can we convince them to give up their jobs? It requires external pressure but also internal pressure. 

Juan: We always teach students to not look at people through a deficiency model. Don't just look at people and see what they lack. We believe every community (no matter how oppressed or deprived) has something to contribute to their "liberation". 
Meena: We work with groups in India that seek to persuade Dalits in communities all across India to give up their jobs and to even smash their places of work (latrines). These groups lead the action, persuade and support people in the process of Dalits giving up their internalization of "this is the best job we can do".  But they still need technological support, this is what we can do.
David: Solutions never come from the top down. slum dwellers, shack dwellers are forming federations to build houses, build latrines, etc. They don't have the political power to demand change but they can at least work towards it. Orangi Pilot Project is accountable to citizens of Karachi. 
Donna: What is the role of government in supporting or not supporting your work? How does your project engage with the gov't?
Emanuele: Gov't. contributes very little and even when they promise to, they fail to deliver. There are also problems of disconnections between the values of commercial, government, nonprofit paradigms. Cost recovery is a regressive way to fund essential services – gov't does not contribute and poor are left to fend for themselves. many donor agencies leaving sewage outside because it is too expensive to deal with it  But teh required investment to halfve the proptrtion of people in areas that are not connected to teh sweage system are equal to 75% of the bailout of northern rock.
David: We lost 20 years because of the false belief that privatization would save us particularly privtatization of services.
Darko: Nothing was a false belief. It was intentional. We need to have alternate systems of production, consumption, etc like a cooperative structure. 
Jon: Are there opportunities for socially just, culturally appropriate leapfrogging in sanitation?
John Kandulu – Wateraid aims to promote such technology. We do this not only to use this resource but also because the traditional sewage model doesn't work. However, if we scale it up too much, we end up polluting the environment. So some experimentation is needed.
David: Leapfrogging works the other way as well. From south to north.
Jonathan Parkinson: Reuse of excrement is an ancient practice but we need standards and a debate around those standards.
Doug: Could the microfinance model work for sanitation?
David: Microfinance doesn't support groups. It is a one to one relationship. It's not the answer. My fave city in Brazil has a sewer for everyone but that required years of organizing and political movement. That's what you need.
Eric: Community sanitation is dangerous for girls and women. They might get raped or sexually assaulted while using those facilities.
David: But shitting in a plastic bag is ideological bullshit. That's not a real alternative.

Approaches to an engineering practice which is socially just

Posted on by

EAP’s panel within the panel on water and sanitation

1. Jonathan Parkinson, International Water Association, spoke of how sewerage are conceptualised in cities and how engineers interest in this appear to diminish the closer one gets to the households. A second issue is that waste water is rarely treated before discharge. Conclusion, one needs to focus on the sanitation around houses. On a positive note, there are some examples of initiatives which try to address this (Orangi Pilot Project in Pakistan), but they are limited.

2. Meena Varma, Dalit Solidarity Network, spoke of the horrendous situation of the dalits situation especially in the South East Asia. Eg. Forced to manually scavenge human excrement from public and private dry latrines despite legislation outlawing the practice, but even were this is enforced dalit men are still lowered into open drains to unblock blocks without any protective gear. Worst job in the world – cleaning up other people’s shit!

3. David Satterthwaite, International Institute for Environment and Development, spoke of the problems of help organisations reluctance to help (in a good way) in urban areas lacking sewers. There are examples of local initiatives such as the Organgi project which have been successful both in terms of implementation, results, and cost effectiveness (e.g. no or little need for external funding). Conclusions, talk to the people living without sanitation, draw on local knowledge and expertise and then integrate these local systems into the bigger urban systems.

4. Emanuele Lobina, PSIRU, spoke of an alternative scheme of addressing sanitation issues in developing countries. Historically public funding and services have provided sanitation in developed countries, e.g. no cost recovery. In contrast this is currently not done very much when doing project in developing countries which often rely on private actors and cost recovery. Also, important to focus efforts in the Sub-Saharan region as areas as India have more recourses to solve the problem by themselves.

5. John Kandulu, WaterAid, spoke of the organisation Wateraid’s efforts to improve access to safe water, hygiene and sanitation in the world’s poorest communities. Get communities and households to get to the first step of improving their sanitation, i.e. no faeces on the surface. WaterAid works with locals to find solutions that are suitable for the locals. Are solutions like these replicable elsewhere etc.

The rest of the panel

Jaime Arturo Bastidas Legarda spoke of the situation of displaced victims due to the armed conflict (between armed groups outside the law) in Colombia and his research is relation to this.

Andrew Fox spoke of a proposed project (Promoting social equity for disabled people in Gambia) he, Ebou Faye Njie others would like to carry out in Gambia addressing equity for the disabled and how the engineering community has and can interact/promote this issue and what role engineers can play in this project. The project is being developed by people in Gambia and was initiated by Ebou Faye Njie. At this time the project team is being put together.

Darko Matovic spoke of his role in the Waste for Life project coordinated by Caroline Baillie and Eric Feinblatt. Especially he expanded on some of the technical aspects of the hot press at the centre of the project and sent around some of valets made out of which have been made as prototype products.

Some comments from the Reconceptualising engineers and engineering practice panel

Posted on by

Eric: Guilds and apprenticeships are not unproblematic.

…

Andres: Usman is engineering inherently militarist, white supremacist, patriarchal etc.?

Usman: I think we can say there is a mindset of listening to authority, but was making generalisations. I think we…

Andres: So you say YES. Usman: … YES. Dean: If it really is so, why are we here?

Others: Yeah.

Doug: Referring back to the relevance of Heidegger’s question of “What is the essence of technology?”

Chris Rose: Nothing can be inherently anything. In ancient times eng was as much about complex magical devises as problem solving.

Andres: Discourse analysis of engineering… If we want to do something we need to change what engineering means…

Notes from Katy from the “Access to engineering education” panel

Posted on by

The talk was framed around the topic of social mobility. Matthew talked about access to universities and degree programs in terms of graduate premiums and professional status of their graduating students.

There is an underrepresentation of women and those from a lower socio-economic status in engineering classrooms.

Efforts are underway to address these issues.
1.building the business case of a diverse engineering workforce
a.by showing that creativity is increased
b.by showing that complex difficult questions are better solved
c.by showing that highly skilled graduates are good for competition
2.conducting outreach in schools through activities that are appropriate and relevant to the area, and that include a role model
3.getting engaged with the mainstream education process of STEM learner hours:
a.extracurricular engagement:
a.i.recruitment
a.ii.understanding what engineering is all about
a.iii.building an identity (that can be very fragile)
b.curricular engagement:
b.i.help to develop curriculum
b.ii.make sure it is relevant
b.iii.build self efficacy

Notes from Lisa McLoughlin

The talk followed the path of a person with practical skills (but no math background) who has opted to start at community college to their final destination of graduating from a four-year engineering program, and the questions that arise along the way. Who are they? Are they in the right place?

There needs to be a balance between abstract and applied content, including for evaluation for grades. There is a link through design. Students can close the apparent rift by completing a project in which theory and design are valued.

Students are taught to “learn to learn” so that they understand that various outcomes are valuable.

Structural accommodations allow for a diversity of students to have access to education. Many ‘non-traditional’ students attending community college for engineering are, for example, returning-learners, parents, part time, or low socio-economic status, so providing night classes or alternate models of delivery of material will allow them to attend. Providing a clear list of accepted welcomed pathways would also help.

Discussion
There was discussion around the ‘business case’ model and its effectiveness for this application.
There was a comment about giving students credit for prior experience, as long as it included a reflection process about the experience. This helps to bridge the gap.
Comments were made about the need for a positive identity for engineering students.
Outreach programs were discussed: need to get many schools involved and make the experience authentic and relevant.
Increasing tuition fees in the US/UK were discussed. US = self-destruct; UK = little effect so far, but larger changes coming that might change the picture.

Notes from Katy from “Toward a Critical Praxis for Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace”

Posted on by
  • Institute ESJP awards for students (undergrad, grad) and faculty
  • Share ESJP activities, findings, etc at more mainstream conferences
  • develop communities of practice in different countries to promote local dialogue and praxis
  • scrupling (wine & cheese) with local engineers, town hall meetings
  • encourage more students to participate in ESJP conferences
  • global north trained by the global south
  • common projects
  • community and engineers meetings
  • porting existing SJ curricular integration to other universities via students and faculty and make part of engineering design criteria
  • teach SJ via case studies
  • surveillance technology
  • complex situations need complex, but still values-based responses
  • more opportunities for faculty to participate in student activities; reward this behaviour – faculty member as mentor, help recognize academic dimension
  • networking forum – support network
  • invite experienced practitioners into the classroom [can be titled “visiting professors”]
  • train ESJP ambassadors: for going into companies, for public outreach, for embedding in engineering labs/courses, etc.
  • mining
  • working for/against corporate management
  • integrate SJ into engineering courses (when relevant to course objectives)
  • producing and sharing knowledge (eg books, workshops, key note speakers events)
  • train/educate faculty on how to integrate SHJ into their courses
  • local professional engineering society to have a voice on social justice issues
  • pro-bono engineering practice – ID existing programs, working with professional societies
  • what is ‘informed citizenry from global prospectus?
  • a global exercise: who benefits, who pays? in many classes, post answers on web
  • ASEE activism – provocative posters on SJ themes
  • Do we assume our students are unable to arrive at “the right” position?
  • Are we making SJ the only/primary focus of engineering?
  • Trust the students…

Transformative Social Justice Workshops for Engineering Educators

Posted on by

Jon Leydens, Juan Lucena, and Jen Schneider presented a session with the goal of developing a workshop for teaching engineering faculty about social justice. They piloted part of the workshop in order to observe the group’s discussion of the material.

They presented six mindsets identified by Riley (Engineering and Social Justice, Morgan and Claypool, 2008) in her analysis of engineering culture as exemplified in jokes told within the profession about the profession:
o Positivist epistemology / Myth of Objectivity
o Commitment to Problem Solving /Reductionism
o Desire to Help/Persistence
o Centrality of Military/Corporate Orgs
o Narrow Technical Focus/Lack of Other skills
o Uncritical Acceptance of Authority

While Riley argues that these mindsets ought not to be thought of “engineering mindsets” per se, they are clearly present among some engineering students and practicing engineers. Leydens, Lucena, and Schneider posited that these mindsets may present barriers to teaching engineering faculty about social justice, particularly related to four elements of social justice education proposed for engineering faculty:
o Awareness and dismantling of privilege
o Fostering empathy
o Integrating personal and professional selves
o Incorporating critical pedagogy and other social justice interventions in the classroom

During the session three groups were asked to consider how two of the mindsets identified by Riley act as barriers to each of the four social justice education goals identified by Leydens, Lucena, and Schneider. While the groups didn’t have time to complete the task, and some conversation did not necessarily answer the question prompts directly, the report below captures some of the highlights from each group’s conversation.

Group 1: Positivism/Objectivity and Problem Solving/Reductionism
How to break down privilege: In Columbia, poverty is visible, and being in university at all represents economic privilege. In the US, people tend to believe what they have achieved is based on merit not privilege. So there are different challenges in different contexts. One solution for a workshop with professors is to look at their history and ask them where in their journey they benefited from privilege.

How to foster empathy: Don’t challenge neutrality of technology, but elicit what is bad and good about a particular technology. Now technology is no longer neutral.

How to promote integration: Present case studies with an emphasis on social and technical problems. Relate to different content subjects.

How to incorporate critical pedagogy: Reward structure has to change. Meet faculty interests.

Group 2: Desire to Help/Persistence and Centrality of Military/Corporate Orgs

Desire to Help/Persistence
Privilege:
Have semi-structured discussion looking at similarities and differences between privileged and non-privileged groups. Role-play and simulation activities. Concern that faculty would have difficulty in seeing the connection between role-play and reality. Faculty could do energy audit or ecological footprint. Real data on graph, then compare to a different setting to highlight difference

Integration:
Isn’t it socially unjust for a professor to lecture values as if their view is the only right one? Students need a chance to form their own opinions and voice them, not just learn facts. Encourage roundtable discussions, sharing in classroom.

Military/Corporate
Privilege: Explore possible places engineers can work, generate alternatives to military/corporate. Government/NGO/entrepreneurial alumni/ae come back and talk about what they use from a course and how social justice issues come up in their lives. Home vs. work lives – ask professors whether they act the same or not at home vs. at work?

Where there are global compact agreements it is important to pay critical attention to whether these are surface agreements that represent lip service or whether agreements are substantively reflected in actual practice.

Group 3: Narrow Technical Focus/Lack of Other skills and Uncritical Acceptance of Authority
For all learning elements: Role-play. But it might be challenging to do this in a group of faculty or in a professional setting because it may be outside their comfort zone. Another idea is to have a quiz like in a magazine with point tallies that tell you something about your values. Or create/design scenarios, then ask faculty to think about their values and how they would apply in a given scenario.

This group found it problematic to have been presented with the mindsets as barriers to the four educational goals. They wanted to address or undo the mindsets rather than potentially reinforce them or work around them in trying to meet the four educational goals.