English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Engineering practice always involves social and technical dimensions. However, the bulk of an engineering education gives students little practice in thinking sociotechnically. The organization and content of the curriculum is much at fault here. While engineering science courses focus largely on the technical, engineering design courses sometimes integrate the social and the technical but in ways where the social is reduced to economic and client-based constraints at the expense of broader socio-cultural dimensions. Meanwhile, courses for undergraduate engineers in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) focus largely on the social but marginalize linkages to the technical. This paper addresses the sociotechnical gap in the HSS by identifying six classroom-tested Engineering for Social Justice criteria. We examine how those criteria function to foster enriched learning on the sociotechnical dimensions of engineering practice in two HSS courses. To conclude, we discuss both the benefits and limitations of using those criteria.

Making the Invisible Visible: Integrating Engineering-for-Social-Justice Criteria in Humanities and Social Science Courses