Shanna Daly

Abstract Engineering design applications that emphasize positive societal impacts are growing in popularity, yet often overlook the critical importance of engineering designers’ and stakeholders’ positionalities – their unique identities, experiences and resulting perspectives and social positions relative to others – in shaping design decisions. Insufficient attention to positionality can limit designers’ abilities to navigate complex problem contexts, engage diverse perspectives and address power dynamics, ultimately constraining the effectiveness and equity of design outcomes. However, little is known about how designers conceptualize and account for positionality in practice, particularly in the early stages of design when problem framing decisions are made. Therefore, this study explored how 10 engineering students and 10 practitioners conceptualized positionality in the initial stages of design for “social good,” where its impacts are especially pronounced. Each participant engaged in a written reflection and semistructured interview. Key findings include limitations in participants’ available language and strategies for accounting for positionality in design processes, particularly in the early stages, and that participants’ learning about positionality was largely driven by exposure to diverse identities and contexts. These insights highlight the limitations of engineering training and skillsets in design-for-social-good and emphasize the need for strategic, intentional consideration of positionality in design practice and education.

Abstract Utility-scale solar projects—large solar energy systems typically connected to the electric grid—are central to decarbonization efforts in the United States. Yet their development is shaped by complex socio-technical systems involving diverse stakeholders, regulatory frameworks, and evolving community expectations. This study investigates how developers navigate decision-making and stakeholder engagement in this landscape. Through semi-structured interviews with five solar developers, we identified key decision points, interaction patterns, and barriers to incorporating community perspectives. Findings reveal a fragmented community landscape, with landowners and local officials as primary decision-makers, neighbors (residents living near proposed project sites) as emerging stakeholders, and the broader public engaged largely through regulatory hearings. Developers often balance transparency with caution, adopting limited engagement strategies to manage risk and public opposition. These dynamics highlight opportunities for integrating design-driven approaches that reframe community engagement not as a compliance activity but as a central part of infrastructure design. This paper contributes to design theory by examining how utility-scale energy developers engage with fragmented community stakeholders, and by identifying opportunities for applying participatory design principles to support more responsive and context-sensitive socio-technical system development.

The U.S. manufacturing sector contends with an aging workforce, recruitment and retention challenges, and a strengthened national push for domestic production, leading to renewed calls for broadening workforce participation. Existing literature on broader engineering education suggests that both the focus of engineering curricula and student perceptions of a discipline’s career path likely impact workforce participation rates. To assess the current state of perceptions of manufacturing careers by undergraduate and graduate mechanical engineering students at an R1 public university, the authors of this paper collected and analyzed primary survey data in the 2023–2024 academic year. Perceptual differences existed between academic levels and between students with and without industry internship experience. Conversely, the findings revealed minimal differences in the perceived appeal and importance of manufacturing competencies and skills across racial and gender identities. Additionally, university courses and industry internships were identified as the primary factors influencing students’ perceptions of manufacturing careers. We propose that early exposure in mechanical engineering courses to real-world experiences that encompass a variety of manufacturing skillsets could foster more accurate career perceptions and potentially enhance participation rates.

Purpose This study aims to investigate the use of a sociotechnical case study as a means of integrating social and technical dimensions into an undergraduate engineering sustainability technical elective course. Design/methodology/approach The “Big Wind Project” case study used a microhistory approach to engage students in the complexities of sustainable engineering, aiming to facilitate their exploration of the sociotechnical nature of engineering sustainability projects. Focused on a controversial wind energy project in Hawaii, the Big Wind Project case study served as a pedagogical tool in the course for engaging engineering students in complex sustainability challenges. Findings Thirty-nine students who engaged in the case study lesson responded to questions about their perceptions of the case and the role of stakeholders and other social dimensions in engineering decision-making and agreed that we could use their responses in this research. While many students acknowledged the importance of accounting for social dimensions, their discussions frequently reflected a persistent tendency of engineering work to view outcomes through a dualistic technical-vs-social lens rather than an integrated sociotechnical lens. Originality/value This study examined how a case study reveals and supports students’ navigation of the complexities of sociotechnical engineering sustainability work.

Abstract Background Collaboration—including coordination, communication, and teamwork—is crucial to engineering practice. However, engineering students are often perceived as lacking key collaboration skills at the time of graduation. Purpose We used structuration theory to explore how differences between students and practitioners' collaboration beliefs related to differences between academic and professional collaboration contexts. We sought to demonstrate that the perceived collaboration “skill gap” in engineering students can be explained by differences between academic and professional social systems. Methods We conducted interviews with 30 undergraduate engineering students and 28 practicing engineers, and from these interviews produced 98 discrete narratives of participants' collaboration experiences. We thematically analyzed these 98 collaboration narratives to identify student and practitioner collaboration beliefs. We further coded four narratives for organizational enablements and constraints to show how differences in student and practitioner collaboration beliefs related to differences in organizational collaboration “rules.” Findings Students described boosting productivity through teamwork and limiting social bonding with teammates. These beliefs represented reasonable approaches to collaboration given observed organizational constraints including short project durations, single‐discipline teams, and an inability to choose teammates. Practitioner beliefs about the importance of cross‐functional collaboration and building collaborator rapport across projects reflected organizational enablements that facilitated collaborations with these qualities. Conclusions Students' beliefs about appropriate academic collaboration practices did not translate to professional contexts. Instructors can prepare students for work by strategically easing collaboration constraints to allow for more diverse collaboration experiences. Work mentors should explain the collaboration expectations of their workplaces to facilitate new hire socialization.

Abstract Participatory Design – an iterative, flexible design process that closely involves stakeholders, often end users – is growing in use across design disciplines. As more practitioners use Participatory Design (PD), it has become less rigidly defined, with stakeholders engaged to varying degrees through disjointed techniques. This ambiguity can be counterproductive when discussing PD processes. We performed a systematic literature review that builds shared, foundational knowledge of PD processes and techniques while also summarizing the state of PD research in the field, as a first step in supporting richer understandings of how best to equitably engage with stakeholders. We found that a majority of PD literature examined specific case studies of PD, with the design of intangible systems representing the most common design context. Stakeholders most often participated throughout multiple stages of a design process, recruited in a variety of ways, and engaged in several of the 14 specific participatory techniques identified. Our findings also identify leverage points for creators of PD processes and how the leverage points impact design equity, including: (1) emergent versus predetermined processes; (2) direct versus indirect participation; (3) early versus late participation; (4) one time versus iterative participation; and (5) singular versus multiple PD techniques.

Background: Understanding instructors’ perspectives that shape their decision making related to integrating societal content in their courses is key to informing efforts to ensure engineering training prepares students with the skills and knowledge necessary to account for both technical and social dimensions of complex engineering problems. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study examines the varied ways instructors think about the relevance of societal content to engineering courses and how, if at all, it can or should be integrated in their courses. Design/Method: Drawing on interviews with 21 instructors across 11 engineering departments, we leveraged a composite narrative analysis approach to present nuanced descriptions of the narratives articulated by instructors about their decisions related to the integration of societal content in their courses. Results: Our findings describe five composite narratives that highlight a range of perspectives informing instructors’ decisions about the integration of societal content, ranging from a belief that societal content has no place in engineering coursework to a belief that societal content is inherent in and a necessary consideration for all engineering work. Conclusions: Instructors’ narratives made evident the ways in which technocentric values about engineering work shape decisions about what is taught in engineering courses and how societal content is often weighed against, rather than connected to, technical engineering science content. While many instructors discussed the relevance of societal considerations in engineering, they also described a need for greater support in efforts to implement societal content in their courses.

Participatory Design -- an iterative, flexible design process that uses the close involvement of stakeholders, most often end users -- is growing in use across design disciplines. As an increasing number of practitioners turn to Participatory Design (PD), it has become less rigidly defined, with stakeholders engaged to varying degrees through the use of disjointed techniques. This ambiguous understanding can be counterproductive when discussing PD processes. Our findings synthesize key decisions and approaches from design peers that can support others in engaging in PD practice. We investigated how scholars report the use of Participatory Design in the field through a systematic literature review. We found that a majority of PD literature examined specific case studies of PD (53 of 88 articles), with the design of intangible systems representing the most common design context (61 of 88 articles). Stakeholders most often participated throughout multiple stages of a design process (65 of 88 articles), recruited in a variety of ways and engaged in several of the 14 specific participatory techniques identified. This systematic review provides today's practitioners synthesized learnings from past Participatory Design processes to inform and improve future use of PD, attempting to remedy inequitable design by engaging directly with stakeholders and users.

As states like California move to decarbonize and invest in clean mobility, understanding how the evolving transportation landscape affects travel behavior becomes crucial. This transition to decarbonization presents an opportunity to create a more just energy system, benefiting underserved and historically marginalized communities. This study explored how a limited-income community in Sonoma County, California uses personal transportation to address their travel needs. Through qualitative interviews at two affordable housing complexes, we uncovered residents' experiences with transportation and factors influencing their travel choices. Our findings showed that participants navigated a complex, interconnected transportation system, comprising five critical subsystems: transportation options , infrastructure , availability , financing , and rules and norms . Each subsystem was characterized by distinct points of interaction, reflecting the multifaceted experiences of users. Individual circumstances, such as interactions with the criminal justice system and familial responsibilities, profoundly shaped participants' transportation choices. Participants prioritized factors such as cost-effectiveness, safety, convenience, and reliability, but their decisions were also influenced by their specific needs and contexts, including the need for point-to-point travel, family alignment, and familiarity considerations. In this work, we uncovered the social dimensions of personal transportation choices, which can help transportation planners and engineers better integrate a sociotechnical perspective when designing future transportation systems. By understanding the diverse needs of communities and applying a sociotechnical systems perspective, policymakers can work toward a more equitable and decarbonized transportation future, ensuring access regardless of personal circumstances and individual travel needs.

Abstract In this work-in-progress paper, we report on ongoing work conducted during the initial stages of research that inform the development of a framework to support the design and delivery of equity-centered engineering curriculum and instruction within undergraduate courses. The entire project is supported by an NSF Broadening Participation in Engineering (BPE) grant, and the research discussed in this paper includes (1) a synthesis of relevant literature on how to teach equity-centered engineering content – about the application of equity considerations in engineering practice – and/ or to use equity-centered engineering pedagogy – creating equitable learning conditions in engineering courses – and (2) a summary of individual interviews with engineering instructors who have incorporated issues of equity into engineering courses. Many dimensions of the current culture of undergraduate engineering programs impede curricular and pedagogical attention to issues of equity in engineering courses. Research has identified barriers that include a culture of competition rather than collaboration; whiteness, masculinity, and heteronormativity; the belief that engineering is apolitical, objective, neutral, and meritocratic; and the presumption of a social-technical divide and consequent prioritization of technical knowledge over social understanding. Our literature review and interviews both aim to identify course components that engineering instructors and instructional staff consider essential for equity-centered engineering education, including both pedagogy and content and the interplay between them. For this research, we defined equity-centered engineering curriculum and instruction as courses or sequences of courses that both integrate equity considerations into technical content and support students' engagement through pedagogical attention to equitable classroom environments. We first introduce the project and framework development in this paper, and then discuss a sample of findings, and we also briefly describe the remaining work to develop, implement, study, and iterate on the framework.

technologies, and novel STEM educational interfaces for formative learning and assessments.

Abstract While socially engaged skills and knowledge are increasingly viewed as central in contemporary engineering practice, they remain underemphasized in undergraduate engineering training. Reducing barriers and providing support for instructors interested in integrating these skills into their engineering courses is key to better preparing students to account for social and contextual factors, alongside technical factors, in their future engineering work. This paper provides an overview of the approaches leveraged by the Center for Socially Engaged Engineering and Design (C-SED) at the University of Michigan to support instructors in their efforts to integrate socially engaged content into their courses. As the C-SED continues to broaden its reach in new course contexts, we sought to understand instructor's motivations for and experiences working with C-SED, as well as their perspectives on additional opportunities to facilitate both deeper and wider-reaching integration of socially engaged content into their engineering courses. We share findings from a feedback questionnaire from instructors currently partnering with C-SED in their courses and discuss implications for our own and others' efforts to integrate more socially engaged content in engineering education.

Engineering requires innovation to solve complex challenges.Creative solutions require divergent thinking-the consideration of multiple alternatives-in addition to ultimately converging on a single correct solution.Few studies have focused on the impact of engineering education, structures, resources, and environments on students' exploration of divergent options.While often considered during design concept generation, divergent thinking can be pursued throughout engineering projects-when building an understanding of a problem, gathering information and considering stakeholders, choosing problem solving strategies, evaluating possible solutions, and predicting implications of decisions.This narrative study describes one student's experience in an open-ended project, highlighting barriers and themes related to project structures and environments.We identified varied influences on divergent thinking during the student's engineering processes, such as mentor guidance and support of exploration, the participant's knowledge and skills, scholarly research, and material resources.These findings suggest attention to structural support as well as resource accessibility and availability for divergent thinking may be effective in encouraging divergent practices during open-ended problem solving.The narrative serves as a tool for educators, students, and practitioners, emphasizing the importance of environments and structures in promoting divergent thinking practices in engineering.

Radical designs for fission and fusion energy systems require engineers who are grounded in technical knowledge, adept at engaging communities in participatory design, and fluent in ethical, equity-centered communication.

Abstract While systems engineers rely on systems thinking skills in their work, given the increasing complexity of modern engineering problems, engineers across disciplines need to be able to engage in systems thinking, including what we term comprehensive systems thinking. Due to the inherent complexity of systems thinking, and more specifically comprehensive systems thinking, it is not easy to know how well students (and practitioners) are learning and leveraging systems thinking approaches. Thus, engineering managers and educators can benefit from systems thinking assessments. A variety of systems thinking assessments exist that are relevant to engineers, including some focused on the demonstration of systems thinking knowledge or skills and others measuring attitudes, interests, or values related to systems thinking. Starting with a collection of systems thinking assessments from a systematic literature review conducted by our team, we analyzed in-depth those behavior-based assessments that included the creation of a visual representation and were open-ended, i.e., it did not presuppose or provide answers. The findings from this in-depth analysis of systems thinking behavior-based assessments identified 1) six visualization types that were leveraged, 2) dimensions of systems thinking that were assessed and 3) tensions between the affordances of different assessments. In addition, we consider the ways assessments can be used. For example, using assessments to provide feedback to students or using assessments to determine which students are meeting defined learning goals. We draw on our findings to highlight opportunities for future comprehensive systems thinking behavior-based assessment development.

His research is at the intersection of human computer interaction (HCI), visualization, and large-scale data mining of human behavior

Her research characterizes front-end design practices

Abstract Engineering is inherently a sociotechnical endeavor. However, social aspects of engineering work have historically been framed as outside the purview of engineering practice. Given both the history of exclusion of social considerations and the current impacts of that history, we investigated students' development of socially engaged engineering skills. The Center for Socially Engaged Design (C-SED) at the University of Michigan developed a Social Engagement Toolkit (SET) to help better prepare students to leverage socially engaged engineering skills. In order to evaluate impacts of the SET training on what students attend to, we studied how students who participated in a course that leveraged SET materials approached engineering problems. We conducted a scenario-based pre-/post-interview exploratory study with five upper-level mechanical engineering students who participated in a capstone course that utilized the SET in its curriculum. In this paper, we present summaries of each participant pre-SET and post-SET interview together as individual cases for a total of five cases. We end by describing how this exploratory study informed iterations of our scenarios and interview protocol.

Abstract Academic makerspaces are physical locations that help support engineering classroom instruction and provide exposure to workplace skills like prototyping and design. Makerspace proponents have championed equitable makerspaces as sites for increased access to tools and knowledge in science and engineering. However, this promise is yet to be realized, with an emerging body of work critiquing the notion they are delivering equitable benefits to all students (Huber et al., 2021; Kye, 2020; Vossoughi et al., 2016). Democratization cannot be realized without the full participation of a diverse student population. Following the work of Hagerty et al. (1992), full participation is characterized by individuals' sense of belonging in these spaces. To break down the forces that exclude underrepresented groups in academic makerspaces, Villanueva Alarcón et al. (2021) claim that the intentional creation of a culture of belonging is necessary. Therefore, this study focuses on understanding the sense of belonging of women engineering students in different academic makerspaces. Although prior work has explored the culture of belonging within makerspaces, it is often centered on the staff or administrator perspective. Few studies have addressed the factors impacting students' sense of belonging from their point of view. To explore this question, we interviewed four women engineering students that were involved in different makerspaces at a large public, research-intensive university in the Midwest. Using the work of Hagerty et al. (1992) and Villanueva Alarcón et al. (2021) as a theoretical framework to inform the interview protocol and analysis. The interview data were analyzed to identify similarities and differences across participants' experiences and perceptions of belonging. A round of open coding was conducted to identify the emerging themes from the data. Then the data was analyzed using the sense of belonging framework from Hagerty et al. (1992). Results from this analysis show that as women increased their level of making experience, either prior to entering the space or during their time in the makerspace, the factors that signaled their belonging changed. Students with little prior experience saw their belonging as a function of the amount of time they spent in the space, while more experienced participants tied their belonging to social aspects or to the purpose of the space. The findings from this study provide an interesting point of reflection for makerspace staff to consider when creating a makerspace that encourages belonging. Understanding that users, depending on their previous experiences, identity, and time spent in the makerspace environment, perceive their belonging differently suggests a variety of interventions is needed. Consciously creating a makerspace with the differences in users' sense of belonging in mind could promote an enhanced culture of belonging in their spaces for women.

Abstract Engineering requires comprehensive skills, including both technical and socio-technical skills. However, the engineering practices that are introduced in coursework tend to predominantly emphasize the technical skillsets. Research has shown that the perception of engineering as a technical-only field can alienate students who hold beliefs in communal goals, even though they achieve excellent academic performance in their engineering coursework (Stevens et al., 2008; Danielak et al., 2014). Such research findings point to the need for developing greater understanding of the types of skills and practices that could potentially invite students to particular disciplines within engineering. Thus, our research focuses on understanding the aspects of engineering practices that first year students describe as important to their reasons for pursuing mechanical engineering. To explore this question, we drew on a subset of data from our larger multi-methods study, analyzing data from in-depth interviews with four first-year students interested in pursuing mechanical engineering at a research-intensive university in North America .Through these semi-structured interviews, we focused on students' motivations for pursuing engineering, their first-year course experiences, and their own interests and goals in engineering. The findings revealed that the students felt motivated to pursue mechanical engineering to engage in various practices, including technical analysis, design work, societal impact, collaboration, and communication skills. The findings demonstrate diverse practices that drew different students to pursue engineering as a major and a career. Compared to their course experiences, students expressed interest in more focus on developing socio-technical and communication-based skills. These findings contribute to our understanding of how engineering courses can recognize and provide development opportunities for diverse engineering practices, ultimately supporting students in achieving their goals as engineers. Work from this project was funded by an NSF grant within the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) in the EHR Core Research (ECR) program.

This research paper examines the curricular messages perceived by students about what practices are valued and central to engineering work. Emphasis on certain practices, and de-emphasis on others, can impact if students see themselves as engineers and their interests in engineering. In this study, we compared the experiences of two 3rd-year Industrial Engineering students and two 3rd-year Mechanical Engineering students through semi-structured interviews. We analyzed these data guided by Holland and colleagues' figured worlds framework to build an understanding of the engineering practices and skills students perceived as important in their courses, what values, activities, and interests were encouraged and discouraged by their instructors and peers, and how these practices and skills aligned or misaligned with student career and engineering interests. Our findings showed that teamwork, problem-solving, technical communication, and using foundational technical knowledge were perceived by students as emphasized most in their classes. Students discussed how these practices and skills built the foundation to do their engineering work but were at times dissatisfied with the lack of social considerations around stakeholders, sustainability, and contextual aspects of their work. Students further described career interests to solve complex, societal issues. This paper has implications for incorporating sociotechnical practices and broader careers interest into engineering curriculum.

Abstract Divergent thinking is the process of exploring many options and perspectives and is a key part of effective and inclusive engineering outcomes. In engineering education, divergent exploration is often applied within idea generation; however, many other stages in engineering projects may benefit from divergent exploration, such as defining problems, identifying stakeholders, selecting problem solving approaches, and understanding potential implications of engineering decisions. Professional engineers often struggle to identify and manage diverse perspectives, and little is known about the practice of divergent exploration in engineering projects. To investigate, we interviewed a mechanical engineer about her exploration practices in a past professional project. From her striking examples of divergent thinking and barriers to its practice, we constructed a narrative-based educational tool for students, educators, and practitioners. The engineer's first-hand experiences demonstrate that to think divergently, engineers must understand system constraints, explore widely, seek information from many sources, take risks, seek varied perspectives, and explore multiple methods to solve problems.

Direct observation of design contexts allows engineers to collect detailed data in ways that are not possible with other methods, and is therefore a key method in sociotechnical engineering design, especially during the front-end of design processes. The development of design observation skills for engineering students presents challenges, however, including the effort required to reach representative observation sites and the uncertainty involved in real-world design environments. Students have often struggled to demonstrate recommended practices in sociotechnical design activities such as observation, yet may need observation skills during design project opportunities including curricular and co-curricular design projects. In addition, skills development may be especially challenging and critical when design environments are difficult to access, such as those in sensitive or remote locations. Therefore, this study explored the efficacy of a prototype VR-based design observation training tool with four undergraduate students engaged in a co-curricular global health technology design program. Participants were first given classroom-and VR-based design observation training, then interviewed before and after real-world design observation practice to elicit perceptions of the advantages, limitations, and overall effectiveness of the VR training experience. Across approximately six hours of collected interview data, participants reported positive general perceptions of the VR tool, which was described as more engaging and realistic than classroom-based training. Participants also discussed the limits of VR in preparing them for real-world observation, and technical and usability limitations of the VR system; they also identified variables to consider for the design of future design observation tools. Overall, participants suggested that VR may be most valuable as a complementary tool to other training formats.

In her work, she characterizes front-end design practices across the student to practitioner continuum, develops empirically-based tools to support design best practices, and studies the impact of frontend design tools on design success. Specifically, she focuses on divergent and convergent thinking processes in design innovations, including investigations of concept generation and development, exploring problem spaces to identify real needs and innovation opportunities, and approaches to integrate social and cultural elements of design contexts into design decisions.

In her work, she characterizes front-end design practices across the student to practitioner continuum, develops empirically-based tools to support design best practices, and studies the impact of frontend design tools on design success.Specifically, she focuses on divergent and convergent thinking processes in design innovations, including investigations of concept generation and development, exploring problem spaces to identify real needs and innovation opportunities, and approaches to integrate social and cultural elements of design contexts into design decisions.

His research explores how engineering students and practitioners engage stakeholders in their engineering projects, reflect on their social identities

Abstract As problems become more complex, global, and interdisciplinary, engineers need to develop novel solutions and utilize resources, information, and tools in strategic and creative ways. Divergent thinking describes a process where multiple options, pathways, alternatives, or ideas are developed. For engineering students, divergent thinking can facilitate flexibility and expand opportunities considered when solving problems. To develop divergent thinking skills in engineering, we must understand how it is (and is not) facilitated in current engineering education experiences. Current pedagogy and resources available in engineering education on divergent thinking are limited. Thus, our research focused on exploring educational experiences in which students felt they considered divergent thinking. In this paper, we describe the iterative development of an interview protocol to elicit student experiences related to opportunities for divergent thinking. From the initial round of piloting, we found student awareness of divergent thinking was limited. Our findings highlight the need to structure questions in ways that align with students' existing understandings of their engineering experiences. Our team made modifications to the protocol to address this, including using accessible terms to describe divergent thinking, asking students to describe one example project they remembered well, and focusing questions within one step of the project selected by the student as most relevant to their exploration of alternatives. This iterative development of the protocol was successful in eliciting divergent thinking experiences across their work.

Abstract Engineering designers are tasked with complex problems necessitating the use and development of various supports for navigating complexity. Prescriptive design process models are one such tool. However, little research has explored how engineering designers perceive these models' recommendations for engagement in design work. In this exploratory study, we analyzed data from individual semi-structured interviews with 18 mechanical engineering students to identify participant perceptions of design process models. As many design process model visualizations lack explicit attention to some social and contextual dimensions, we sought to compare perceptions among two models drawn from engineering texts and one model that was developed with the intent to emphasize social and contextual dimensions. We identified perceptions of the recommendations from the design process models related to starting and moving through a design process, gathering information, prototyping, evaluating or testing, and what they should consider. Participant perceptions across the three process models suggest different design process models make perceptions of certain recommendations more salient than others. However, participant perceptions also varied for the same process model. We suggest several implications for design education and training based on participant perceptions of the process models, particularly the importance of leveraging multiple design process models. The comprehensive descriptions of participant perceptions provide a foundation for further investigations bridging designers' perceptions to intent, behavior, and, ultimately, design outcomes.

In her work, she characterizes front-end design practices across the student to practitioner continuum, develops empirically-based tools to support design best practices, and studies the impact of frontend design tools on design success. Specifically, she focuses on divergent and convergent thinking processes in design innovations, including investigations of concept generation and development, exploring problem spaces to identify real needs and innovation opportunities, and approaches to integrate social and cultural elements of design contexts into design decisions.

As the pace of engineering keeps increasing, new innovations foci in engineering education research are needed. This paper presents one such innovation, away from looking at the skills engineers are to develop to focus on their embodied understanding of practice around aspects of professional practice. It does so through the use of a qualitative research approach known as phenomenography. The results of three a research projects guided by phenomenography are discussed and provide a unique lens for understanding aspects of the world that influence the practice of engineering, namely those of design across disciplines, sustainable design and cross-disciplinary practice. This paper summarizes the results from these three phenomenographic studies, emphasizing the implications these results reveal about the direction engineering education needs to head.

The purpose of this paper is to present three perspectives for interpreting design thinking: (1) an alternative framework on learning to become a professional, and (2) two interpretations of this framework that speak broadly to a topic of “design thinking”. The first perspective draws on a framework for “an embodied understanding of professional practice” that focuses on the ways professionals form and organize their knowledge and skills into a particular “professional-way-of-being”. The second and third perspectives provide examples of using this framework as a lens for interpreting existing results from phenomenographic studies on ways of experiencing design and ways of experiencing cross-disciplinary practice. We conclude with a discussion of how these three perspectives contribute to conceptualizing a working synthesis of design thinking.

Abstract Background To prepare engineers who can address complex sociotechnical problems, a deep understanding of engineers' complex problem‐solving approaches is needed. Purpose/Hypothesis This study operationalizes comprehensive systems thinking as an analysis framework that attends to aspects of engineering work and relationships among those aspects. Leveraging this framework to analyze engineers' complex problem‐solving approaches enables attention to social and technical dimensions. Design/Method We interviewed 46 engineers about their specific complex problem‐solving experiences. To explore a range of perspectives, we purposely sampled participants with varying academic, professional, and personal backgrounds and experiences. Data analysis focused on operationalizing comprehensive systems thinking; we first developed a set of aspects that captured the variety of considerations that participants discussed in their descriptions of solving a complex problem. We then inductively developed a scoring guide to differentiate response quality. Results The scoring approach differentiated the quality of consideration based on a combination of the number of details provided, the degree of specificity, and analytical depth. While most participants discussed the consideration of a wide range of aspects of engineering work, they discussed far fewer possible relationships between these aspects. Contextual aspects of engineering work were consistently the least commonly identified and least likely to be considered in relation to other aspects of a given problem. Conclusions Our differentiation of various complex problem‐solving approaches can guide the development of educational interventions and tools, ultimately facilitating more comprehensive consideration of aspects—and in particular relationships among aspects—and setting up engineers to be more successful at developing appropriate solutions.