Search results

Who can make claims “to know?” This chapter argues that there are distinct sets of understandings in social science versus STEM fields, and that STEM education research can benefit from interdisciplinarity, instead of being disciplinary (principally the purview of STEM insiders). The concept “gender” proves illustrative. Among many social science scholars, gender is understood as a complex social construction: contingent, contextual, contested ways that masculinities and femininities are embodied, enacted, and differentiated in everyday social life – as compared to simple, dichotomous male–female comparisons. Comparing social science and STEM conceptualizations of gender leads to three conclusions. First, empirical research with more forward-looking conceptualizations demonstrate that outdated underpinnings in STEM research overlook important issues, such as seeking solutions within individuals (especially students) instead of in the educational community or STEM culture. Second, since the frontier of social science keeps moving, and STEM insiders’ appreciations will necessarily lag new understandings, STEM-insider research might unfortunately be outdated from inception. Thirdly, the chapter concludes that collaborations between/among STEM and social science scholars have greater potential for research with explanatory power, research able to contribute better understandings of and solutions for dilemmas of STEM education.

This chapter aims to present the context, the approach and the pedagogical tools deployed at École Centrale Marseille (ECM) to promote gender equality in engineering education. The ECM has put several mechanisms in place such as challenging traditional gender stereotypes, social representation of the engineering profession and facing the realities of a professional world that is overwhelmingly masculine, including awareness of the glass ceiling effect on access to positions of responsibility and prevention of sexual harassment. The ECM model combines multidisciplinary studies with a professional grounding with the aim of educating students to be able to transform society. In 1997, the ECM founded the Mediterranean Network of Engineering Schools with the main goal of fostering sustainable development in the Mediterranean basin. The ECM has been part of the community of practice on gender equality initiated by Mediterranean Network of Engineering Schools through its participation in the H2020 TARGET project on gender equality in research and higher education.

Purpose – Mainstream science, technology, and society (STS) scholars have shown little interest in engineering ethics, one going so far as to label engineering ethics activists as “shit shovelers.” Detachment from engineering ethics on the part of most STS scholars is related to a broader and long-standing split between the scholar-oriented and activist-oriented wings of STS. This chapter discusses the various STS “subcultures” and argues that the much-maligned activist STS subculture is far more likely than the mainstream scholar subculture to have a significant impact on engineering ethics education and practice.

Approach – The chapter builds on analyses of STS subcultures in research and education from the literature and identifies a similar set of subcultures for engineering ethics research and education.

Findings – Reconciliation of the STS subcultures will tap an activist tradition that already has strong ties (practical, historical, and theoretical) to engineering ethics research and education. Acknowledging that STS and engineering ethics each have legitimate, activist-oriented subcultures will position STS scholars and educators for providing needed insights to engineering activists and the engineering profession as a whole. STSers should recognize and appreciate that many engineering ethicists and engineering activists are concerned both with issues internal to the profession and broader social implications of technology.

Originality/value – The chapter presents an analysis of STS subcultures and their relationship to engineering ethics. As such, it will be of interest to STS scholars and engineering ethicists alike, as well as engineering ethics and STS educators.

In current academia, as Fox points out in the opening chapter of this volume, knowledge fields are characterized by an implicit (and sometimes explicit) hierarchy, which posits a higher ranking for the “hard” and natural sciences as opposed to the social sciences and humanities. This has influenced education as well as other social arenas. Students in the social sciences have long benefited from the “exact” sciences and the technology they have produced. Numerous texts present “Statistics for the Social Sciences”; computer applications are developed particularly for social science use (e.g., SPSS); physics, chemistry, and math classes are offered for non-majors across college campuses. The texts, computer applications, and courses adapt the scientific discipline to the needs of non-science or non-math majors, broadening the impact of the respective disciplines to a wider audience, and allowing the way of thinking in one discipline to influence the others. But one would scarcely find “Sociology for the Uninitiated,” or “Social Science for Engineers.” Not that there are no social scientists eager to impart their insights to their STEM colleagues and students. In fact there is a whole movement of “public sociology,” which endeavors to share sociological insights with many types of lay audiences as well as engage sociology in public issues on many topics and levels (ASA Task Force, 2005; Burawoy, 2005). But in all too many campuses STEM students cannot fit an elective into their tight curriculum, designed to meet strict accreditation criteria, and social science winds up somewhere low on the list of priorities. To be fair, some accreditation bodies have recognized the need to introduce undergraduate students to societal contexts. For example, since their seminal EC (Engineering Criteria) 2000, ABET (the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) has incorporated into the annually updated program outcomes required for accreditation that students have “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental and societal context” (ABET, 2007: Criterion 3h). But sometimes this outcome requirement is wedged into an ethics section, often taking up less than a two-week stint in the total undergraduate education. For an example of a more extensive application, see my website, http://users.rowan.edu/∼hartman/SocStem/index.html, where an outline of social science concepts, bibliography, and teaching ideas are developed for introducing STEM students to social science. Common sociological concepts and perspectives are illustrated in STEM contexts or using research in or on STEM subject matter. There is much material here upon which to build bridges.

While discourse abounds regarding the potential impacts of sports mega events on host cities, existing ideologies about, strategies for, and systematic examinations of “legacy” effects are poorly understood. This chapter presents a sociological examination of the sport mega-event legacy measurement process.

In this chapter, we reflect on our own involvement in legacy evaluation in the context of the 2015 Pan/Parapan Am Games in Toronto to examine existing legacy measurement strategies, review their findings, and present a theoretical detour via the past for consideration in future sociological contributions to the legacy measurement process.

Data discussed in this chapter suggest a need for the creation of a more sociologically informed, methodologically robust and piecemeal rather than Utopian-oriented “report card” measurement device for legacy evaluation.

Based on the review of evidence, we contend that if sociologists of sport remain committed to keeping their roles, as public intellectuals, applied researchers or participatory activists in the sport for development/legacy nexus, those involved might do so with a greater attention to focusing on what Karl Popper (1961) refers to as piecemeal social engineering strategies and measurements, and attending to those legacies both on and off the event organizing committee radar screen.

Theoretical reconstruction for the sake of practical political relevance is inherently resistant to the theorisation of a rigorous sociological discipline. Yet, the need for such theoretical reconstruction recurs in history, particularly in times of social and economic crisis when social reconstruction of damaged, fractured and conflict-ridden societies was seen as urgent by both applied sociologists and publics at large.

This paper directs itself to questions regarding the intellectual and political origins of the Swedish, egalitarian, democratic welfare state ideology in the 1930s, and how it came to be theoretically defined in opposition to the overarching binary frameworks of ‘conservative’ capitalism and ‘progressive’ Marxist socialism.

Using McLennan’s notion of a ‘vehicular’ concept, I will attempt to show that the ‘third’ or ‘middle way’ compromise between opposing interests has, since its inception in the earlier parts of the twentieth century, changed over time, and will continue to change, within shifting political contexts and changing practical, political demands to ‘move things on’.

This paper also examines the concept of social planning – social engineering – as a ‘third way’ practical strategy and how it came to be used as a political and theoretical stick by which attack ‘third way’ democracy by both neo-liberal and Marxist theorists.

The paper builds on the author’s previous research on the intellectual and political visions of the Swedish social scientists and reformers, Alva and Gunnar Myrdal, and argues for the continuing importance of theoretical reconstruction and innovation in the preservation of justice and democracy.

The chapter presents the implementation of ethics education via challenge-based learning (CBL) in three European settings. At TU Eindhoven (the Netherlands), a mandatory first-year User, Society, and Enterprise course on the ethics and history of technology offers a CBL alternative on ethics and data analytics in collaboration with internal student and research teams. The University of Lübeck (Germany) initiated the project CREATE – Challenge-based Learning for Robotics Students by Engaging Start-Ups in Technology Ethics, which enables 60 students in Robotics and Autonomous Systems to integrate ethical and societal considerations into technological development processes, in cooperation with start-ups from a local accelerator. In Spain, CBI-Fusion Point brings together 40 students from business and law (ESADE), engineering and technology (Polytechnic University of Catalonia), and design (IED Barcelona Design University) for an innovation course focused on the application of CERN-developed technologies to real-world problems. The chapter documents the process of setting up three CBL courses that engage students with grand societal topics which require the integration of ethical concerns from the design stage of technological development. The authors also reflect on the challenges of teaching ethics via CBL and the lessons they learned by delivering experiential learning activities rooted in real-life challenges and contexts marked by high epistemic uncertainty. The contribution reflects the transition to remote teaching and presents strategies employed to enhance online communication and collaboration. The chapter thus provides guidance for instructors interested in teaching ethics via CBL and recommends further lines for action and research.

This chapter provides an assessment of how the late Portuguese colonial state (especially in Angola and Mozambique) responded to widespread conflict and anticolonial pressures. Focusing on its structures, idioms, and strategies of social transformation and control-especially as they relate to the domains of development and security-my assessment of state response emphasizes the coming together of: coercive repertoires of rule; planned developmental strategies of political, economic and social change; and processes of engineering sociocultural difference. The late colonial state’s developmental and repressive facets are critically assessed through mobilizing theoretical perspectives and empirical analysis.