Tag Archives: esjp2010

Session 1 (Thursday)

Posted on by

Dean started off the session by talking about the ESJP Research project which aims to develop:

1. Skills inventory of ESJP members
2. List of past/current research of central to SJP work
3. Questions you would like answered about ESJP 
4. A databse of approaches to ESJP
Dean, himself, is interested in expertise and the "problem of expertise" in social justice work.
Craig followed up Dean's presentation by talking about understandings of ethics among engineering students and how students don't understand the social impacts of engineered systems. He pointed to a "human-centered" design process developed at EPICS Purdue that uses authentic examples of engineering systems in social contexts to connect students with socially just engineering.
Arias from EWB-Columbia spoke about some questioning the EWB Columbia is doing such as:
  • Why don't EWB chapters from the North work in the North? Why do EWB chapters from the South work in the North?
  • What is the difference between intervention or education / intervention through education / education through intervention?
  • Is the product more important or the process?
  • What is the difference in projects/process in rural vs. urban environments?
  • How do we deal with institutional support or intolerance?
Lizzie from EWB-Australia talked about the "EWB Journey". EWB-Oz works with communities through two-way sharing of knowledge. They also work with schools, universities, and engineering companies to connect engineering learning with social justice. EWB-OZ attempts to create a new engineering culture that is community-centered, encourages cross-cultural understanding, critical thinking and builds leaders of social change. They currently don't use the "social justice" articulation but their vision does match up nicely. 

Check-In (Thursday)

Posted on by

An important discussion arose during our check-in around why industry partners are not present. 

 

Lizzie from EWB-Oz indicated that she felt that industry partners were missing from the conversation and not just practitioners. Donna talked about a previous conference where a Proctor & Gamble rep at a Social Justice and Engineering conference gave them a marketing pitch. Dean indicated that some of us have critiques of capitalism. 

 

Juan added that not having people from industry not interested in social justice in a meaningful manner allows us to have more advanced conversations.
 
Dean replied that industry/corporate types are invited to ESJP if they are meaningfully interested in social justice as long as they are not threatened with the anti-capitalist (or at least capitalism not the best) boundary of ESJP. 
 
Caroline brought up a discussion around intellectual property and anonymity. She argued that anonymization robs people of their voices and that their intellectual property must belong not to the researcher but the subject. Juan replied back that anonymization actually protects people from repercussions by creating a safe space to talk about anything. Donna added that the ESJP group could’ve been seen as collaborators as opposed to subjects in the study conducted yesterday by Jen, Juan, and Jon.  

Jen, Jon, and Juan’s workshop

Posted on by

Some additional notes:

Six mindsets in engineering Positivism and the myth of objectivity Commitment to problem solving Desire to help and Persistence Centrality of Military/Corporate Organizations Narrow technical focus and lack of other skills U

ncritical Acceptance of Authority

Our group focused on Mindset 5 and 6. Some comments:

Caroline: I’m uncomfortable with the assumption with engineers only having a narrow technical

Jen: How can we help engineering faculty understand the own privilege (if they are stuck in a narrow mindset)?

Darko: My wife’s social group organises a role play/work shop called “Poverty challenge” with local … where they have to deal with social security etc.

Caroline: EWB Oz also use role-plays and we tried one in my class and I was grateful to regain my power as teacher. [So very powerful]

Ellie: Making the connections visible important. Adapt role-plays etc to persons and context. Exploring one’s own privilege is uncomfortable. Take a role easier.

Usman: If not “real”/personal then likely not really change how people think. For example, make people realise that they might be rich due to the existence of poor people.

Katy: Use a light point questionnaire (multiple choice) to let people score themselves to potentially make them see their own blind spots.

Darko and Ellie expanded on this.

Session 5 (Wednesday)

Posted on by

After a brief hour-long break (tea time — it is England after all!), Jon and Jen talked about designing workshops to help students push past Donna’s “mindsets that serve as barriers to justice“.

They led the group in an exercise that attempted to brainstorm how engineering educators may be taught to push pass those same barriers. During the workshop, three mini-groups asked each other questions on privilege, empathy, integration, and pedagogy.
  • Group 1: Heather from EWB-Queen’s (Canada) spoke about connecting educators with each other and the ESJP network. This would help interest more engineering educators in teaching about justice in their classes.
  • Group 2: Use roleplaying activities to highlight privileges of class, race, etc. Students must form their own values. Educators cannot simply lecture on their own values. Student input can be encouraged through the use of roundtables, buzz groups.
  • Group 3: We questioned whether assuming these mindsets would reinforce them. Use roleplaying to face barriers like the Poverty Challenge.

 

 

More on Donna and Katy’s workshop

Posted on by

Donna Riley and Katy Haralampides, drawing on Ursula Franklin’s ideas of scrupling encouraged, us to think of our own experiences of situations when we ourselves have been acting for (promoting) social justice and then in small group share and try to come up with examples/ways of how we can use/transfer/draw on these strategies/experiences in our ESJP work.

Juan’s group drawing on Lizzie’s experience from EWB Oz suggested that maybe trying to formulate/frame ESJP issues through formulas and models might be a way to get acceptance from other engineering faculty etc. However, if this was done then the essential human relationships fundamental for these issues would be lost, so it would be a bit pointless.

Lastly, we, in small groups, brainstormed about actions that the ESJP network can take collectively. Some suggestions were:

• Bring community members from different parts of the world together.
• Training courses in the south.
• Encourage student participation in the ESJP network.
• To share outcomes of this ESJP meeting in relevant contexts in our home countries.
• Institute ESJP awards…
• Initiate scrupling events in our own local (engineering) communities for example during wine and cheese.
• A global exercise done simultaneously in different classes and contexts.
• What does informed citizenry look like and how can engineering contribute?
• Activism at main conferences – provocative posters on SJ themes.
• ESJP ambassadors – students? – to go into classes etc.
• Pro-bono engineering, with out profit societies.
• Rip down unethical job postings?
• Database of ESJP case studies.
• Pointing to existing ESJP curricula around the globe for the benefit for educators and students at other institutions.

Session 4 (Wednesday)

Posted on by

I’m looking forward to Donna and Katy’s workshop. They’ve started out with talking about Ursula Franklin and scrupling (More here).

They would like the ESJP attendees to scruple about social justice. They asked the audience what experiences do you draw on for your activism, why, and what kinds of actions will you take in the future?
After a brief discussion, they invited attendees to brainstorm action the ESJP collective can take and how we would do that.