Paper ID #33125
Workshop Result: Teaching Science Diplomacy to Environmental Engineer- ing Researchers
Dr. Daniel B. Oerther, Missouri University of Science and Technology
Professor Daniel B. Oerther, PhD, PE joined the faculty of the Missouri University of Science and Tech- nology in 2010 as the John A. and Susan Mathes Chair of Civil Engineering after serving ten years on the faculty of the University of Cincinnati where he was Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Oerther earned his Ph.D. (2002) from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Dan’s professional registrations include: PE, BCEE, BCES, CEng, CEnv, CEHS, and DAAS. Oerther’s schol- arship, teaching, service, and professional practice focus in the fields of environmental biotechnology and sustainable development where he specializes in promoting Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WaSH), food and nutrition security, energy efficiency, and poverty alleviation. Oerther’s awards for teaching in- clude the best paper award from the Environmental Engineering Division of ASEE and the society-wide Robert G. Quinn Award from ASEE, the Engineering Education Excellence Award from the NSPE, the Excellence in Environmental Engineering and Science Educator award from AAEES, and the Fair Dis- tinguished Engineering Educator Medal from WEF. Due to his collaborations with nurses and healthcare professionals, Professor Oerther has been inducted as a Lifetime Honorary Member of Sigma Theta Tau, the International Honor Society of Nursing (STTI), and he has been inducted as a Lifetime Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing (FAAN) and the Academy of Nursing Education Fellows (ANEF). Oerther has also been elevated as a Fellow of the Society of Environmental Engineers (FSEE), the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA), the Royal Society for Public Health (FRSPH), the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (FCIEH), the Society of Operations Engineers (FSOE), and the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (FAEESP).
c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Workshop Result: Teaching Science Diplomacy to Environmental Engineering Researchers
Daniel B. Oerther Missouri University of Science and Technology, 1401 North Pine Street, Rolla, MO 65409
Abstract
A preconference workshop on the subject of science diplomacy was attended by 25 participants of the 2017 biennial conference of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors. The three-fold purpose of the 2017 workshop, included: 1) explaining the value of science diplomacy; 2) demonstrating aspects of science diplomacy; and 3) encouraging further exploration of science diplomacy. The three approaches used to achieve this purpose, included: 1) required participation in a pre-conference workshop website; 2) required participation in hands-on, team-based exercises during the workshop; and 3) invitation to voluntary follow-up after the workshop was completed. To assess knowledge, skills, and attitudes, a voluntary readiness assessment test (RAT) was administered on-site before the 2017 workshop was undertaken, and a second voluntary comprehension assessment test (CAT) was administered on-site immediately following the 2017 workshop.
As part of follow-up to the 2017 workshop, a semi-structured panel discussion including the subject of science diplomacy was included in the 2019 biennial conference of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors. The 2019 discussion was live streamed to conference participants who interacted with the panelists directly via a simultaneous Twitter chat. The digital recording of the 2019 discussion was saved as an educational artifact, and it was used by the author as part of a module teaching science diplomacy to students of environmental engineering in an ongoing, semester-length course entitled, “STEAM Diplomacy” (science, technology, engineering, art, and math).
The purpose of this paper is to share: 1) details of the workshop in 2017, which may be replicated by others; 2) results of the analysis of the RAT and CAT from 2017; and 3) the author’s experience with using the educational artifact from 2019 as part of a dual level (undergraduate and graduate) elective course on science diplomacy.
Introduction
Science diplomacy – the triune approach of: 1) scientists acting as diplomats; 2) diplomats facilitating scientific collaboration; and 3) cultural diplomacy via scientific gatherings and international exchange – is both a long-standing and a recently re-emerged aspect of international relations [1]. For example, the first Ambassador of the United States was inventor-scientist Benjamin Franklin, and the first Secretary of State was farmer-scientist Thomas Jefferson. More recently, in 1961, Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was written to highlight that, “the functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in … promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural, and scientific [emphasis added] relations,” [2]. And in 2015, the National Academies of the US noted that the US State Department can more effectively carry out its mission (i.e., “shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere,”), by taking full advantage of the, “unmatched science and technology capabilities of the United States,” [3].
Disseminating the value of, demonstrating the basic approach to performing, and encouraging the practice and teaching of science diplomacy to a diverse audience of engineering graduate students, faculty, and administrators was the objective of a preconference workshop, which was part of the 2017 biennial conference of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP) in Ann Arbor, Michigan as well as the objective of a “chat in 4D” during the 2019 biennial conference of AEESP in Tempe, Arizona.
The purpose of this paper is to share: 1) details of the workshop offered in 2017, which may be replicated by others; 2) results of the analysis of a voluntary readiness assessment test (RAT) and a voluntary comprehension assessment test (CAT) administered immediately before and immediately following the on-site workshop in 2017, respectively; and 3) the author’s experience with using the digital recording of the 2019 discussion as an educational artifact from 2019 as part of a dual level (undergraduate and graduate) elective course on science diplomacy.
Methods
Workshop content in 2017: background on science diplomacy. Science diplomacy is both an “established” and a “newly-emerged” sub-discipline in the broad field of diplomatic relations. Science diplomacy is part of what is known as “soft power” (or “smart power”) [4] and contributes to public diplomacy, where the diplomatic apparatus of a nation speaks directly to the citizens of other nations [5]. Recently, science diplomacy was defined to include three primary actions, including: 1) advancing a nation’s own needs; 2) addressing cross-border interests through bi-lateral and multi- lateral diplomacy; and 3) meeting global needs and challenges through the United Nations and similar organizations [6].
In the opinion of the author, science diplomacy is less a well-defined subject and more a loosely-recognized concept (i.e., science diplomacy is best defined by “you know it when you see it”). Widely recognized examples of multi-lateral science diplomacy – such as, the 1954 founding of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (known as CERN), the 1959 signing of the Antarctic Treaty System, and the 1998 launch of the International Space Station – provide an insight into the three pillars of science diplomacy, namely: 1) scientists serving as diplomats (i.e., the Iran nuclear deal, formerly known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action adopted in October, 2015); 2) diplomats facilitating science (i.e., the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization or UNESCO, founded in 1945 and currently headquartered in Paris, France); and 3) scientists engaging in cultural diplomacy (the Interacademy Partnership or IAP, founded in 1993 and currently including a global network of nearly 150 national and regional member academies of science, engineering, and medicine including the National Academies of the US). Recently, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has been working to promote science diplomacy as a career option for scientists interested in policy, as a tool to advance science through multilateral diplomatic engagement, and as a way to ease international tensions through bringing together scientists as informal ambassadors of culture. The AAAS launched the Center for Science Diplomacy in 2008 and publishes the Science and Diplomacy e- journal to stimulate discussion and sharing of advances in science diplomacy, including the creation and sharing of educational resources. The materials available from AAAS were leveraged to support a preconference workshop on science diplomacy in 2017, as well as a semester-length course on science diplomacy that has been developed by the author as part of this overall educational effort at the Missouri University of Science and Technology [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
The three-fold purpose of the 2017 preconference workshop, included: 1. explaining the value of science diplomacy using required participation in a pre- workshop website (see: https://aeesp2017sciencediplomacy.wordpress.com); 2. demonstrating aspects of science diplomacy using required hands-on, team-based exercises during the workshop (see Appendices, below); and 3. encouraging further exploration of science diplomacy through invitation to voluntary follow-up after the 2017 workshop was completed (i.e., including a panel discussed recorded during the 2019 biennial conference of AEESP; see: https://player.mediaamp.io/p/U8-EDC/1NdtkAtDkeFO/embed/select/media/p_MXwUyppn7p)
Format, content, and assessment for 2017 workshop. The Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP) hosts biennial conferences to advance its mission to, “assist its members in the development and dissemination of knowledge in environmental engineering and science.” In 2017, the membership of AEESP gathered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As part of the three-day, on-site event, conference participants were invited to apply to attend one or more of a variety of different pre-conference workshops.
To assist others in replicating a workshop on science diplomacy, the complete application submitted by the author for consideration by the conference organizers for a preconference workshop is provided in Appendix 1.
The successful proposal was shared with conference participants, and a total of 25 preconference workshop participants were self-selected from a pool of approximately 500 conference registrants (i.e., by voluntarily opting to participate in one or more preconference workshops advertised to all conference registrants).
To achieve the three-fold purpose of the workshop, a blended format was employed, as participants were provided with educational artifacts to review before meeting in person (i.e., brief explanatory videos available from the AAAS) (see Appendix 2), and participants were provided with presentations by experts and opportunities for team- engagement during the on-site portion of the 2017 workshop (explained, below).
Immediately before the workshop began on-site in 2017, the participants were invited to complete a voluntary RAT to assess their knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards the subject of science diplomacy (see Appendix 3).
During the on-site portion of the workshop, active learning was employed, including brief expert presentations (see Appendix 4) as well as representative results of assignments subsequently completed in small groups (see Appendix 5).
Immediately after the workshop finished on-site in 2017, participants were invited to complete a voluntary CAT to assess changes in their knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards the subject of science diplomacy (see Appendix 6).
The results of the RAT and the CAT were subsequently analyzed to understand how the workshop benefitted the participants in their awareness of, comfort with practicing, and interest in further exploring science diplomacy.
Panel discussion and creation of educational artifact in 2019. In 2019, the AEESP hosted a biennial conference in Tempe, Arizona. As part of the three-day, on-site event, conference participants were invited to participate via synchronous Twitter chat in moderated panel discussion of diverse topics, including the subject of science and policy. The author was an invited panelist to provide subject matter expertise on science diplomacy in one of these panels.
A semi-structured panel discussion was live streamed (available online at: https://player.mediaamp.io/p/U8-EDC/1NdtkAtDkeFO/embed/select/media/p_MXwUyppn7p) to conference participants who interacted with the panelists directly via a simultaneous Twitter chat. The digital recording of this panel in 2019 was saved as an educational artifact, and subsequently the author has used this recording as part of a module teaching science diplomacy to students of environmental engineering in a semester-length course entitled, “STEAM Diplomacy” (i.e., science, technology, engineering, art, and math) [9], [11].
Human subjects. Exemption for this education activity was provided by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.
Results
Workshop in 2017. In 2017, a total of 25 participants of the biennial meeting of the AEESP participated in a preconference workshop on the subject of science diplomacy. All of the 25 participants completed the required exercises before the on-site portion of the workshop, and all 25 participants were actively engaged during the on-site portion of the workshop. Immediately before and immediately following the on-site portion of the 2017 workshop, all 25 participants were invited to complete a RAT and a CAT to document their knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards science diplomacy. A total of 22 participants completed the RAT, and a total of 22 participants completed the CAT.
The results of participants’ responses to their “attitude” about the workshop and the subject of science diplomacy are summarized in Table 1. To evaluate the “attitude” of participants, three different pairs of terms were provided. Participants were asked to circle the feeling that was most accurate to their own feeling. Nine participants did not provide a response to the RAT (recorded as “No answer” in Table 1), and one participant did not provide a response to the CAT (recorded as “No answer” in Table 1). The number of responses indicating “excited” increased from 11 to 17. The number of responses indicating “prepared” increased from 0 to 8. The number of responses indicating “optimistic” increased from 13 to 21.
Table 1. Summary of “attitude” results of the RAT and the CAT performed immediately preceding and following the on-site workshop. RAT First pair Second pair Third pair Nervous 2 Cautious 13 Foolish 0 Excited 11 Prepared 0 Optimistic 13 No answer 9 No answer 9 No answer 9
CAT First pair Second pair Third pair Nervous 4 Cautious 13 Foolish 0 Excited 17 Prepared 8 Optimistic 21 No answer 1 No answer 1 No answer 1
The results of “knowledge” and “skills” assessed using the RAT and CAT performed immediately preceding and following the on-site workshop (data not shown) indicated that few of the participants had an accurate definition of science diplomacy before the workshop, while a supermajority of participants cited the correct definition after the workshop. Additional free-form comments as well as informal discussions with the workshop participants before, during, and after the on-site portion of the workshop provided useful informal feedback, including: 1. The benefits of active learning were highlighted by participants, and “the mock science diplomacy team exercise” was identified as the most rewarding aspect of the workshop based upon participant satisfaction questions; 2. Many participants indicated that they would pursue additional opportunities to engage in science diplomacy, including serving as a scientific ambassador (i.e., through Fulbright) or looking for ways to integrate science diplomacy into classes as learning modules (i.e., using what was learned in the preconference workshop).
Collectively, these results point toward a successful workshop in 2017 with a sizeable fraction of participants demonstrating a working understanding of science diplomacy – both in terms of knowledge as well as skills – plus a positive attitude towards pursuing additional opportunities to engage in science diplomacy (both for personal professional improvement as well as through teaching).
Video recorded panel discussion in 2019. To build on the documented success during the 2017 workshop, in 2019 the author was invited to provide subject matter expertise on science diplomacy as part of a panel discussion on the broader topic of science policy at the biennial meeting of the AEESP. The panel discussion was recoded (partial transcript of questions and answers by the author are included in Table 2 and Appendix 7), and a digital artifact of this panel discussion was made available online. The author has used this digital artifact as part of an ongoing, semester-length course on science diplomacy [9], [11].
As previously described, in the course entitled, “STEAM Diplomacy” (i.e., science, technology, engineering, art, and math), the author arranges for students to complete both required as well as optional exercises as part of six different modules, which follow the chapters of the text by Ruffini (2015), including: 1) science diplomacy introduction; 2) what is science diplomacy; 3) science diplomacy as a national issue; 4) science in diplomatic apparatus: the diversity of national approaches; 5) science in the vanguard of diplomacy; and 6) multilateral science diplomacy. As part of module 1, science diplomacy introduction, students review the digital artifact from 2019, and answer a series of ten true/false questions in an online quiz executed in Canvas. This review is part of a blended learning approach, and students complete the review of this artifact and complete the online quiz BEFORE meeting with the instructor for a synchronous didactic lecture.
Discussion
The subject of science diplomacy is both an “established” and a “newly-emerged” component of diplomatic relations. The recent creation of educational resources, and the recruitment and training of faculty to participate in professional development to learn about science diplomacy provide tools that faculty may use to introduce the subject of science diplomacy to colleagues and teach the subject of science diplomacy to students. The author used these resources to create a semester-long course on the subject of science diplomacy [9], [11], and to provide a pre-conference workshop. In this paper, details of the pre-conference workshop are described, assessment of improvements in the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of workshop participants are described, and the experience of the author using a digital artifact from a panel discussion on the subject of science policy as part of the ongoing semester-long course on science diplomacy is described.
Table 2. Partial transcript of moderated panel discussion on the subject of science policy during the 2019 AEESP biennial conference.
Moderator Question: Why is it important to Moderator Question: We heard at the plenary translate our research into policy? speech that if we aren’t translating our research into policy that it wasn’t really worth doing the research. Agreed? Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: Bottom Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: I agree line policy is personal. We think about it 110%. To clarify: there are different kinds of evidence-based; like I’m going to measure this research. There is the research that is pure basic thing and make a recommendation. But bottom science; I’m passionate about understanding line, policy is personal. It’s like the person you are something. And that kind of research doesn’t need going to spend the rest of your life with. You anything more than for you to care about it. But I could make a pros and cons list, but at the end of think it’s important to understand that that’s not the day it’s going to be what’s in your gut. Policy the only form a research that we can do. And so I has a degree of value to it. There’s a presidential don’t believe I would go as far as to say, “it’s not candidate running right now who is famous for worth doing research if you can’t translate it into saying, “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the policy, because pure science is useful.” But, many menu”. That’s what policy is all about. The of us [members of AEESP] are engineers. And if environment is important. It’s something that we you are an engineer, then you need to be interested [as members of AEESP] have a personal, in how you take that research and solve a problem, investment interest in. Something we care and put something into practice. For example, the passionately about. Something we advocate for. workshop that I was in yesterday had a discussion AEESP members have a natural space to be at the about how to have a management strategy to deal table. … And I’ll caveat this a little bit. It’s with methane coming from a CAFO [confined important that we do it [science policy] animal feeding operation]. And folks were saying professionally. There is a big difference between you could use this unit operation or that unit being an advocate for something, and being a operation. And I said, well how about the policies policy wonk. A policy wonk has to sometimes that create cheap corn? When we have cheap corn, swallow their personal preference because they are then we have cheap beef, and therefore we have addressing something a bureaucrat or a politician more CAFOs. So, actually the tax on corn is just wants them to accomplish. Now you don’t set as important as the unit operation to get rid of aside your ethics and values, but you do have to methane. And being an engineer, and realizing have that balance; that dynamic tension. So, policy that, in my view that’s where you are starting to is something that takes some kind of baptism by get into policy space. Yes, I can design the unit fire to learn. It’s something that’s super important. operation to treat the system, but I can also step And it’s something that I think our members back and say, “you know, actually the tax structure would really benefit from. is going to matter in this; and the tariff structure [for international trade in food] is going to matter for this.” This is where policy gives you a whole range of options so you don’t have all of your focus exclusively on technology.
The results of assessments of readiness and comprehension from the participants in the 2017 workshop demonstrated an increase in knowledge as well as improvements in attitudes towards science diplomacy. Participants noted that active learning, including a mock team exercise in science diplomacy, was a beneficial component of the workshop. And workshop participants expressed their desires to integrate science diplomacy into personal professional development as well as into teaching students. The success of the workshop in 2017 contributed to the authors invited participation in a panel discussion on science policy in 2019, again as part of the biennial meeting of the AEESP. This panel discussion is used by the author as teaching material in a module on “introduction to science diplomacy” during an existing semester-long course, and the results of this course have been published previously [9], [11].
In conclusion, based upon the first-hand experience of the author, and informed by the responses of the participants in the 2017 workshop, informal discussions around the digitally recorded moderated panel discussion in 2019, and through experience with the semester-long course on science diplomacy, the author proposes the following recommendations, namely: 1. Faculty are urged to complete some type of “first-hand” experience as a “science diplomat” BEFORE attempting to teach the science diplomacy process (i.e., students seem to enjoy the authentic learning that comes from sharing first-hand stories of personal experience); and 2. Faculty are urged to identify exemplars of science diplomats – perhaps faculty at their own institution or foreign institutions – to engage with students as additional mentors in teaching about science diplomacy (i.e., don’t try to “teach everything” as the “sole instructor” – science diplomacy is a rich field, and multiple “guest” lectures, including digitally recorded panel discussions, may offer diverse examples of an evolving sub-discipline that provide students with opportunities for authentic learning).
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the additional workshop organizers in 2017, including: Professor Glen Daigger, and Dr. Lee Voth-Gaeddert; as well as the additional participants in the follow-up video chat in 2019, including: Greg Lowry, Colleen Naughton, Caitlin Grady, Kelvin Gregory, and Christine Prouty.
References
1. Royal Society, New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. London, England: Royal Society, 2010. 2. United Nations, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. New York, NY: United Nations, 1961. 3. National Academies Press, Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Embedding a Culture of Science and Technology Throughout the Department of States. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2015. 4. J. S. Nye, Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1990. 5. N. J. Cull, Public diplomacy before Gullion: The evolution of a phrase. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. London, England: Routledge, 2008. 6. V. C. Turekian, P. D. Gluckman, T. Kishi, and R. W. Grimes, “Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside,” Science & Diplomacy, vol. 6, no. 5., 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2018/pragmatic-perspective. [Accessed April 12, 2021]. 7. D. B. Oerther, “The Fulbright program at 70 years old,” Environmental Engineer and Scientist, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 20-21, 2016. 8. D. B. Oerther, “Diplomacy lab provides term-length group projects integration policy analysis and liberal arts into the traditional engineering classroom,” in Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28183. [Accessed April 12, 2021]. 9. D. B. Oerther, “Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math (STEAM) Diplomacy: Preliminary Results from an Initial Pilot Course,” in Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--30952. [Accessed April 12, 2021]. 10. D. B. Oerther, D.B. (2020), “Using science in diplomacy to develop COAST,” Science & Diplomacy, vol. 9, no. 2., 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/sites/default/files/oerther_june_2020.pdf. [Accessed April 12, 2021]. 11. D. B. Oerther, “Science diplomacy: results from a three-year pilot,” in Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Long Beach, California, USA, 2021. [Online]. Available: Ahead of publication.
Appendix 1. Proposal to the workshop submitted by the author to the conference organizers.
Workshop proposal for AEESP
Science Diplomacy - the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address common problems and to build constructive international partnerships - is critical to addressing the global challenges to environmental health in the 21st century. Historically, the field of environmental engineering has moved in two directions - 1) starting from the scale of the individual and drilling downwards with an increasing amount of scientific understanding (i.e., 'chemistry'); and 2) starting from the scale of the individual and expanding outwards with an increasing amount of interconnected relationships (i.e., 'ecology'). While the field of environmental engineering and science has done a very good job of improving our ability to both measure and treat increasingly lower levels of increasingly specialized pollutants, we may not have been as active in promoting some of the outward relationships. Perhaps some of our most notable contributions to the outward looking direction include activities such as participation in Engineers Without Borders or leadership of competitions such as the USEPA People, Planet, and Prosperity program. But on a broader scale, the AEESP membership may be less visible in activities sponsored by organizations such as the United Nations Environmental Program. This is not to say that the AEESP membership hasn't made contributions to outward looking relationships, but rather to posit that those contributions may not be as well known among the membership. And perhaps the AEESP membership may have a lack of understanding of some of the subtle aspects of bi-lateral and multi-lateral engagement in global environmental initiatives?
In an effort to grow the capacity of the AEESP membership to more fully assume leadership roles within bi-lateral and multi-lateral fora addressing global initiatives of environmental health, this workshop is intended to introduce activities suitable for the classroom, opportunities for direct engagement through internships and fellowships, and insight into the role of 'scientists' with the United States Department of State. A second objective of this workshop is to identify collective 'best practices' in science diplomacy historically, recently, or ongoing by the AEESP membership. And finally, a third objective of this workshop is to solicit a core of members interested in science diplomacy to engage with emerging organizations such as the Center for Science Diplomacy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Daniel Oerther will provide overall coordination of the workshop sharing his classroom experience with the US Department of State Diplomacy Lab program. Robert Axelrod - a 2014 recipient of the National Medal of Science for his work on the evolution of cooperation - will provide his experience as a Jefferson Science Fellow working at the United States Department of State as well as a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Glenn Daigger will provide a global view on opportunities for employment as a form of science diplomacy as well as his experience as a co-author of the 2015 National Research Council report, "Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Embedding a Culture of Science and Technology Throughout the Department of State."
The timeline for the workshop includes: 1) 30 min for an introduction to science diplomacy 2) 30 min, each for presentations by Oerther, Axelrod and Daigger (total of 90 min) 3) the remaining time will be dedicated to facilitated discussion to achieve objectives (2) and (3), above
Equipment needs include: digital projector, white boards for brainstorming
This should be open to all members of AEESP. To encourage active participation in the discussion, a limit of approximately 30 participants would be helpful, but not absolutely required.
Of note: if the AEESP organizers would like to include one or more additional speakers with special perspective (ie Jerry Schnoor on Rio and Rio+20) – our panelists would welcome this suggestion. Of note: if there is a need to accommodate a larger audience, the session co-authors will work to identify how to facilitate 'small group break-outs' within the larger venue to achieve a fruitful discussion of objectives (2) and (3), above.
Appendix 2. Pre-conference workshop materials included as part of a web site (see: https://aeesp2017sciencediplomacy.wordpress.com). 1. Review the following online resources, including: a. Careers at the United States Department of State i. available at: https://careers.state.gov b. Careers at the United Nations i. available at: https://careers.un.org/ c. Defining “science diplomacy” from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) i. available at: https://www.aaas.org/programs/center-science-diplomacy 2. Post at least one blog entry that addresses the following: a. What is your name, institution, and current research, teaching, and service? b. Why are you participating in this workshop? c. What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do you hope to gain during the workshop? d. How will you put your learning into practice after the workshop is completed? 3. Post at least two blog commentaries offering encouragement and thoughtful criticism to two additional workshop participants
Appendix 3. The Readiness Assessment Test (RAT) administered immediately before the 2017 on-site workshop.
Voluntary and optional – no identifying information will be released, and all results will be reported in aggregate.
OPTIONAL Name:
PRE-test of Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes:
Define Science Diplomacy:
How would you use Science Diplomacy as an environmental engineer or scientist?
With regard to Science Diplomacy, from each pair of terms, circle the feeling that is Most Accurate
First pair: Nervous Excited
Second pair: Cautious Prepared
Third pair: Optimistic Foolish
Appendix 4. Example of Powerpoint slides used by the panelists in the 2017 on-site workshop.
Appendix 5. Representative Examples of artifacts constructed by teams of participants during the 2017 on-site workshop. Teams were assembled by the workshop organizers. Each team was asked to work together to create a picture that conveyed how science diplomacy fit within the field of environmental engineering and science. Teams were provided 30 minutes to brainstorm (an initial 5 minutes to brainstorm individually, and a subsequent 25 minutes to brainstorm collectively), and 15 minutes to create their pictures using crayons and paper. Each team selected a single spokesperson who presented the picture to the entire workshop audience.
Appendix 6. The Comprehension Assessment Test (CAT) administered immediately following the on-site workshop.
Voluntary and optional – no identifying information will be released, and all results will be reported in aggregate.
POST-test of Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes:
Define Science Diplomacy:
How would you use Science Diplomacy as an environmental engineer or scientist?
With regard to Science Diplomacy, from each pair of terms, circle the feeling that is Most Accurate
First pair: Nervous Excited
Second pair: Cautious Prepared
Third pair: Optimistic Foolish
Appendix 7. Additional partial transcript of moderated panel discussion on the subject of science policy during the 2019 AEESP biennial conference.
Moderator Question: What are the opportunities for AEESP members to get involved in policy?
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: If I can pick up and riff off of your answer [about the science and technology policy fellowship organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science], I think it’s also important that folks understand that we’re in a representative democracy, so that means that participating locally is also part of policy. So, for instance at the Federal level, if your local Congressional Representative is the Chair of Ranking Member of a Committee that is setting policy associated with the environment, you are an incredibly useful asset for AEESP. Because Congressional members listen to those that they represent more than they’ll listen to anybody else because you’re their voter. You’re the person who sent them to Washington in the first place. So, if your Senator is in charge of a committee or if your Congressperson is passionate about something that is related to the environment, we [AEESP] absolutely have to have you as an AEESP member get to know them, participate and get to know them, get to know who is on their staff, go to local [constituent] events when they are back home [in their district], visit them when you are in DC – because those personal connections [are important] because policy is politics and politics is personal – it’s about who you know, it’s about if they can recognize and know you – if you’ve shared an ice cream cone or shared a cup of coffee – and they can say you know, I recognize you and you’re not that bad a person and [therefore] maybe I’ll listen to you. And that [personal connection with a constituent] will go a lot longer than a talking head or a lot longer than just a sheet of paper [position paper from AEESP]. … I think a lot of this is personal. For example, perhaps someone has a political affiliation that lines up [between constituent and Representative] because that may make things easier. But folks [Representatives] look beyond that. I think sometimes we think that we must agree on every single issue with a person to be able to work with them. But in reality I need to be able to find a way to come to an agreement on the issue that is at hand. And for example, having been a science advisor for five years, I know the difference between when I can say “climate change” and when I can say “bad weather” because I’ve had to live through a [Presidential transition] where both terms were used. And I’m talking about the same stuff, but I just simply know that I’m going to talk about disaster is bad weather and where weather comes from – and the folks I’m talking to are smart enough to know what I’m talking about. And yes, do I believe in climate change, and do I know its climate change, of course, but if they [politicians] would like for me to use the word bad weather out in public, because that is what they [politicians] want to talk about, you know what, it’s not really me giving up all of my morals and values to soften on a few of those [language] things. I think a lot of us don’t know those things [how to soften and on what things to soften] coming into it [serving as a science advisor], and I think that’s one of the things [AEESP] can do to help get people connected. Showing them [our members] some of these examples, and helping them [our members] get some of that baptism by fire. How to do some of these things [soften language]. How to walk back when you’ve mis stepped or misspoke. Those are super useful [skills].
Moderator Question: We [AEESP] need input and to be informed by our members, right?
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: To do evidence-based, or evidence-informed policy, to do evidence-informed decision, we’ve got to have the evidence. That’s what we [AEESP] has is spades. We know how important water is. We know how important air is. We know how important soil is. We know these things. We live these things. We research these things. And I think right now there are a lot of organizations that go out there and make statements about the environment – and that’s great, and we want to work with them [other organizations] – and we [AEESP] owns a lot of this space, and its good for us to share our [AEESP]’s voice. Because ultimately at the end of the day, we’re a bunch of scientists and engineers collaborating and working together. And so we’re going to bring something a little bit different from folks who are just an engineering group, or just a group of scientists. Because one of the things that’s nice about our Association, is that we bridge – we are a lot of T-shaped folks – we are very deep in the areas that we know, but we also have a passion about being broad as well. And that’s what’s so great about this organization [AEESP]. … to be able to speak deeply on things that matter to us and that we know what we’re talking about, but also to be able to look wide at what else is out there and who else can we join with; who else can we support and work with.
Moderator Question: From Twitter, “should AEESP develop positions about healthy, economically, environmentally sustainable communities? What would these look like, and can we help to envision the future?”
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: Yes, I think we have some of these statements. For example, organizations such as the American Public Health Association [APHA] who helped to stand up AEESP a long time ago when it was a group of sanitary engineers meeting in a room in Chicago talking about what this organization should be. So, those deep connections to what is public health – what is community health – I think they are already there. So there is a lot for us to be able to leverage in terms of looking at what does it mean to have a healthy community, and what does that look like. I mean you want something that is going to elevate everybody, but also leave no one behind. So, for us to understand what that means [is a challenge]. I mean, we talk about the technology, but do we get into the mindset where we are asking, “does this technology always protect the most vulnerable?” That’s where the policy part starts to come in. We worry about how much is this going to cost, and can my widget get something down to a certain nanogram per whatever, but if there’s some vulnerable population that needs you to get an order of magnitude lower, then your technology isn’t going to work, and that’s where we need to be discussing if we are going to align with policy directives of organizations such as APHA [and leave no one behind]. And so that’s a place where I think our Association struggles. Are we protecting the common good of all, or are we protecting the common good of all plus the most vulnerable? That’s policy. Wrestling with that is policy.
Moderator Question: From Twitter, “how have folks incorporated science communication into lower division courses?”
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: The huge advantage that members of AEESP have is that from a demographic perspective, the ratio of male to female, within environmental engineering is better than any other engineering discipline and well beyond computer science. And so the diversity of views that we can bring – and we can continue to make ourselves more diverse and should strive to that – but our science communication can be so rich. It’s something that we can bring to our colleges. Because again, we’re engineering and science. And within engineering we are one of the most diverse – if not the most diverse – in at least one index – so communication is something we can do well. Again, these things are personal, so when you are in a classroom with folks that don’t look, sound, and talk like you; what a fantastic way to learn how to be an effective communicator. [and yes we need to go much further in terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion in terms of racial and other demographics, in addition to sex].
Moderator Question: How could we create a document that captures and shares science policy examples with faculty to use to teach our students?
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: Yes, this is a great idea. I think this is like the lab manual that AEESP developed. I think the modern lab manual is policy, communication, etc. We’re asking folks to put this stuff into modules and classes. For example, there are a group of folks who brought sustainability in [to environmental engineering and science]. And it’s neat to think that maybe now we need some examples on policy and communication, and to ask ourselves how do we [AEESP] get into that space.
Moderator Question: From Twitter, “what would it look like to incorporate environmental justice into products coming from AEESP?”
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: While I’m far from an expert on this topic, but my understanding is that part of what’s at the heart of this is the question of, “who are you focusing on?” We as teachers. If we focus on ourselves as teachers, we do chat-and-talk and we use our notes from the last twenty years because it’s easy. And if we focus on students, we do active learning and problem based learning. When we talk justice, if we focus on a punitive system, if we focus on the person who did something wrong and we focus our effort on punishing and rehabilitating them we don’t think about the person who was the victim of the crime. So in my view the environmental justice movement, and the justice movement in general, is about how do we make whole the person who has suffered as a consequence of what has occurred. And so it’s about re-centering our focus – very differently – and I think that makes people nervous because it makes them think who’s going to pay for that making somebody whole, who’s responsibility is it? But apparently we have no problem with society spending resources to punish somebody. So, I’m thinking it does seem to make sense to spend some resources to figure out how do we help make people whole. And I can see lots of value in that. I mean that seems to be… or I’d be shocked if that [spending resources to make people whole] wasn’t something where I members said, “yes, we’re for that”. Now, how does that look. And yes, there’s going to be a lot of messy sausage there in the details, and that’s going on around the world. For example, trying to figure out reparations in South Africa. Who owns the land and who owns the resources. Or whether we are talking about similar kinds of issues in the United States and who’s responsible. For example, a university has a school endowed that’s named after somebody who was a former slave owner, I mean we’re struggling with those things in our own country that we have to figure out. And around the world I think those are important issues. And I think, yes, absolutely environmental engineers and scientists have evidence to bring to those issues in terms of decision and policies.
Moderator Question: From Twitter, “How do engineers change behaviors such as getting utilities to do more than just meeting the standards?”
Answer from Daniel B. Oerther: Absolutely. I love this question, right. It really gets at the heart of an issue. So, how do we as engineers get a behavior change? So, let’s step back and ask, “what’s the purpose of a utility?” The simple answer is, “as cheaply as possible meet the regulation.” Why is the utility doing its job as cheaply as possible? Because we, as society, have other things to spend that money on. There’s a reason why they treat the water to a certain standard, because our [AEESP members’] evidence has said that is sufficient. Because then they’ve got to take money to fix roads. Or provide hot lunches at school. Other things need to be done. And this is the realm of policy. It’s this trade off of things. It’s not like we’re making a tradeoff between I’m going to do something good or I’m going to go do something bad. It’s a trade off because I’ve got 500 good things to do, and so which one do I choose and to what extent. I totally get the question, but I think that question is great because it shows that it comes from a person who is thinking about policy. And I would encourage that person to go even further [beyond asking how to get a utility to do more], and ask the question, “what’s the purpose of the utility?” Now, if what we’re asking is, “how do we get a utility to constantly be creative and innovative and look for ways to do more with less – to get a better product for less money” – then that’s awesome! As long as we’re not doing that in a way the destroys morale, and that would be great. But the kind of notion that, “wouldn’t it be great if our bureaucrats just worked harder and spent more money than what was required…” well then they wouldn’t have the money to do the other things that they need to do. So, that’s where getting engaged in policy helps you open your eyes to the fact that they are all good things to do – or many of them are good things to do – and how do we compete among making decisions among multiple things.