Challenging knowledge hierarchies: working toward sustainable development in Sri Lanka's energy sector

This paper analyzes sustainable development practices within Sri Lanka’s energy sector. It directs attention to how expertise functions in development decision making in ways that can unintentionally inhibit sustainable development. Understanding expertise as merely specialized knowledge clouds its role as a social activity. In practice, expertise is a combination of knowledge and authority, and expert knowledge exists within a hierarchically ordered authority structure of diverse knowledge domains—what is referred to here as “knowledge hierarchies.” Knowledge hierarchies exclude the participation of some relevant knowledge domains, and thereby preclude the possibility of local sustainable development. The Energy Forum of Sri Lanka, a small renewable energy advocacy organization, strives to enable sustainability by going beyond facile calls for greater inclusion to confront the mechanisms of exclusion. The paper documents three of the Energy Forum’s development interventions intended to level out the knowledge hierarchy that inhibits sustainable energy development in Sri Lanka. Drawing insights from the Energy Forum’s approach, the paper argues that experts who wish to contribute to sustainable development must attend to the knowledge hierarchies in which they operate to ensure that their own authority does not exclude other relevant knowledge domains

Engineering Students\u27 Conceptualizations of Sustainability

While the integration of a sustainability lens within engineering education is increasingly urgent, the appropriate conceptual underpinnings for such integration remain under debate. The study presented follows an investigation of one small group of students in a course that addressed sustainability in the context of technology design. Our goal was to explore the range of student conceptions of sustainability. Using a phenomenographic approach, we observed and interviewed students in the course and identified seven categories of sustainability. These findings can be used as parts of a tool for scaffolding students\u27 learning experiences

Editors\u27 Introduction

This editorial introduces the new journal, IJESJP. It also provides background information on the journal\u27s formation and the ESJP network

Concurrent Session 3C

Building Trust and Collaboration in the Classroom / Stefanie Ashley, Eastern Kentucky University The principles of group facilitation strive towards engagement and inclusion by creating a safe environment for sharing ideas. The techniques are designed to build trust and collaboration, by encouraging ‘psychological safety’, the term coined by Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School, to describe a workplace environment where people feel ‘safe for interpersonal risk taking’. To illustrate that point, a survey conducted by Slido of 1500 remote workers found that 42% of attendees left a meeting without saying what was on their mind. That sense of freedom to explore, challenge, test, and just speak up is also important in the classroom. There are proven facilitation tools and techniques that can be used in the workplace and classroom to build a high-level of trust and collaboration. Participants in this session will leave with tips for moving a group or class through the various phases of group development to build trust, commitment, and openness. They will explore and practice methods that encourage a sense of inclusion and belonging. The group will discuss how to build a safe classroom environment that inspires sharing, challenging, and questioning for deeper learning and understanding, even when discussing controversial topics. The session will conclude with a discussion about personal limits and just how far to take a group. A Study of Perceptions Among Residence Life Staff Regarding Mandatory Training / Kylee Shiekh, Colorado School of Mines; Dean Nieusma, Colorado School of Mines Resident Advisors (RAs) are students selected to be moral and emotional guides for students living in on-campus housing. They live among the students they care for, enforce policy, host events to encourage socializing and learning, and provide guidance for individuals. During the interview process, professional staff attempt to select for traits suited to this. Then student staff is further taught during formal training sessions. This training involves policy review, to prepare staff as upholders of institutional rulings. A high focus is put on role playing and discussion, to learn effective communication and responsiveness. Training is developed to create effective staff, teaching interpersonal skills for their fellow staff and residents, civic engagement by hosting educational events, and developing community between students who may otherwise be disconnected. The aim of this study is to explore this training and its outcome on students. The intended messaging of the week long affair seems not to be aligned with the outcome students express. Student share their experience with training, including formats which are most effective for them. They’re also encouraged to anonymously share their perception and experience with training. By exploring the student staff experience, and the intentions by the professional staff who design training sessions, we aim to understand the divide between intention and effect in this kind of teaching. We aim to adjust the teaching approach to better develop the student staff in the desired areas of empathy, community engagement, and policy enforcement by addressing communication and curriculum. Session Chair: Cade Smith, University of Mississipp

Technical-Social Integration in Engineering Education: Comparing Accreditation Requirements in Australia, China, Sweden, and the United States

This project analyzes accreditation documents in four countries—Australia, China, Sweden, and the US—as a way to explore opportunities for and barriers to integrating technical and social aspects of engineering education. The cross-national comparison also seeks to shed light on the following two questions: 1. How can accreditation facilitate the education of socially competent engineers through encouraging the integration of technical and social aspects of engineering education? 2. What capabilities do different nations expect from engineers

Visions of Social Competence: Comparing Engineering Education Accreditation in Australia, China, Sweden, and the United States

This paper reports on a cross-cultural analysis of central accreditation requirements for engineering programs—focusing especially on issues related to social impact, social responsibility, and social analysis—in four different countries: Australia, China, Sweden and the United States. Upon comparing and contrasting the accreditation requirements documents and their treatment of “social” capabilities, we found that: I. Accreditation requirements in all four countries are similarly oriented to specific student-learning outcomes, where technical and social capabilities represent roughly equal proportions of the total number of requirements. II. Social capabilities represent a wide range of competencies, including very high-order social-analytic competencies (e.g., understanding the relationship between engineering and its social context). III. Important variations can be identified in how social capabilities are understood, with four distinct categories emerging: Social capabilities 1) as constraints, 2) as awareness, 3) as responsibility, and 4) as cultivation. After reviewing, categorizing, and analyzing the key ways social-analytic competencies are articulated and understood in the four countries’ accreditation documents, we identify key opportunities and challenges facing those seeking better integration of social competencies in engineering education. We conclude the paper with a review of our findings and our next steps