Search results

This paper aims to discuss how the theory of complex thinking can be considered an interesting element in engineering education, especially in the context in which challenges toward sustainable development are multidisciplinary.

This viewpoint synthesizes the main reflections and discussions generated during a process of debate, research and creation of a proposal for an undergraduate engineering course at a higher education institution in Brazil. The literature on engineering education, sustainability and complexity was considered in an integrated way. Debates were conducted considering the authors’ knowledge and experience as professors of engineering courses and researchers in the field of sustainability. A qualitative and reflexive approach was used to organize the main discussions.

The prevailing classical engineering paradigm trains professionals to think from a Cartesian, reductionist perspective, appropriate for solving well-structured problems with known solution paths and convergent answers. However, addressing sustainability challenges requires a different kind of thinking capable of dealing with situations characterized by uncertainty, emergence and incompleteness of knowledge. Complexity thinking can be useful for this purpose as it provides a broad system approach to deal with ill-defined, ill-structured and unpredictable problems. This study can be understood as a call to researchers and professionals to consider the value and importance of complexity thinking to advance engineering education for sustainability.

The need to overcome the limits of the classical engineering paradigm is emphasized in the context of sustainability. Complex thinking is considered as a path toward a paradigm shift in engineering education for sustainability. It can contribute to the training of professionals to face pressing challenges now and in the future. This viewpoint provides some insights to enhance debates on education engineering.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to map and analyze existing complexity typologies and (2) to develop a framework for characterizing complexity-based approaches.

This study was conducted in three stages: (1) initial identification of typologies related to complexity following a structured procedure based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol; (2) backward and forward review to identify additional relevant typologies and (3) content analysis of the selected typologies, categorization and framework development.

Based on 17 selected typologies, a comprehensive overview of complexity studies is provided. Each typology is described considering key concepts, contributions and convergences and differences between them. The epistemological, theoretical and methodological diversity of complexity studies was explored, allowing the identification of the main schools of thought and authors. A framework for characterizing complexity-based approaches was proposed including the following perspectives: ontology of complexity, epistemology of complexity, purpose and object of interest, methodology and methods and theoretical pillars.

This study examines the main typologies of complexity from an integrated and multidisciplinary perspective and, based on that, proposes a novel framework to understanding and characterizing complexity-based approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the phenomenon of work from eight different and subsidiary perspectives: physiological, cultural, spiritual, ideological, economic, political, legal and psychosocial.

This study is based on an exploratory quantitative survey with a probability sample composed of 407 cases. The bibliographic review resulted from several readings about the phenomenon of work and the impacts arising from these different perspectives.

The analysis of the data collected confirmed that the meaning and the sense of work are multifaceted. The authors also found that work is an important source of reflection and learning in people’s life. The research instrument promoted thinking and analysis of the participants’ careers. The research process resulted in mutual and interactive learning of investigators and investigation.

The data collection came from a single source: a written questionnaire. This limits the scope of the data and raises interpretative discussion concerning the contents of the answers. For future reference, the authors suggest to complement it with different techniques of data collection, associating qualitative and quantitative approaches.

The main contributions of the paper are, on the one hand, the effort of synthetizing and recording eight different categories of analysis of the multiple and possible meanings of work, which were elaborated using the available literature, and on the other hand, to understand and analyze those categories using the perception of a numerically meaningful sample of the public, coming from different backgrounds.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a guideline for future studies so that they could choose with increased awareness the initial perspectives at the basis of the analyses. This study could encourage continuity and provide greater incentives on this increasingly relevant subject.

After analyzing the data, it was acknowledged that work cannot be seen from a single perspective, but it must be viewed in its multifaceted character and sense. The published material on the meanings of work usually focuses on specific professions and careers, the authors argue that this fact limits the scope of perspectives and interpretations of the phenomenon.