Development of a scenario-based instrument to assess co-design expertise in humanitarian engineering

Co-design is fundamental to humanitarian engineering and increasingly recognised as such in engineering curricula. However, it is challenging to teach, learn, and assess. In this paper, we describe the development and validation of a scenario-based instrument to distinguish novice and expert approaches to co-design in the context of humanitarian engineering. The instrument assesses the extent to which respondents describe stakeholder participation in each of the scope, design, and deliver phases of the design process, with co-design experts taking a collaborative approach throughout. We analyse and compare responses to the instrument from first-year undergraduate engineering students and experienced humanitarian engineering practitioners. Implications for educators, to use this scenario-based assessment in their own research, teaching, and curriculum development, are discussed in detail

Documenting the Recovery of Vascular Services in European Centres Following the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: Results from a Multicentre Collaborative Study

Objective: To document the recovery of vascular services in Europe following the first COVID-19 pandemic peak. Methods: An online structured vascular service survey with repeated data entry between 23 March and 9 August 2020 was carried out. Unit level data were collected using repeated questionnaires addressing modifications to vascular services during the first peak (March – May 2020, “period 1”), and then again between May and June (“period 2”) and June and July 2020 (“period 3”). The duration of each period was similar. From 2 June, as reductions in cases began to be reported, centres were first asked if they were in a region still affected by rising cases, or if they had passed the peak of the first wave. These centres were asked additional questions about adaptations made to their standard pathways to permit elective surgery to resume. Results: The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt well after countries’ first peak was thought to have passed in 2020. Aneurysm screening had not returned to normal in 21.7% of centres. Carotid surgery was still offered on a case by case basis in 33.8% of centres, and only 52.9% of centres had returned to their normal aneurysm threshold for surgery. Half of centres (49.4%) believed their management of lower limb ischaemia continued to be negatively affected by the pandemic. Reduced operating theatre capacity continued in 45.5% of centres. Twenty per cent of responding centres documented a backlog of at least 20 aortic repairs. At least one negative swab and 14 days of isolation were the most common strategies used for permitting safe elective surgery to recommence. Conclusion: Centres reported a broad return of services approaching pre-pandemic “normal” by July 2020. Many introduced protocols to manage peri-operative COVID-19 risk. Backlogs in cases were reported for all major vascular surgeries

Socio-technical thinking of students and practitioners in the context of humanitarian engineering

© 2020 ASEE Background: Humanitarian engineering (HE) is rapidly emerging in universities and professional workplaces worldwide. In HE, socio-technical thinking is fundamental as HE projects exist at the intersection of engineering and sustainable community development. However, the literature still lacks an understanding of the key features of socio-technical thinking. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this article is to investigate the key characteristics that distinguish the socio-technical thinking of an expert from a novice in the context of HE projects. Design/Method: We distributed the Energy Conversion Playground (ECP) design task to students starting their engineering degree (n = 26) and practitioners (n = 16). We iteratively and inductively analyzed the responses to develop a rubric characterizing the key features of expert socio-technical thinking. We then scored participants' responses and compared them to identify differences between students and practitioners. Results: The analysis showed that expert socio-technical thinkers can provide high-quality considerations across three domains: technology, people, and broader context. The comparison of the participants' scores showed that both students and practitioners scored highly in the technology domain. In contrast, students scored poorly in the people and broader contexts domains, identifying only simplistic considerations in these non-technical areas, if at all. Conclusions: This study provides novel insights into the development of socio-technical thinking and further validates the ECP as a trustworthy measure of socio-technical thinking. Implications for engineering educators and multiple lines of future research are also discussed

Development of Socio-Technical and Co-Design Expertise in Engineering Students

Universities are challenged to educate engineers with a broad set of attributes, including socio-technical and co-design expertise, which will enable them to tackle wicked problems. In this study, we ask: To what extent do courses on human-centred design and systems engineering analysis impact students' development of socio-technical and co-design expertise? We used scenariobased assessment in a pre-/post-design to evaluate the development of these two attributes in two separate units at two Australian universities. The results show some small changes in the responses students gave to the scenario-based tool, at the end of each course. However, the analysis showed that students were still distant from the optimal levels of socio-technical and co-design expertise required of graduates. Therefore, we suggest that such one-off courses are insufficient to develop socio-technical and design expertise. Instead, we argue that engineering programs need to integrate opportunities to develop such expertise throughout all year levels