Paper ID #34520 ”Asking ’why’ instead of ’how’”: Outcomes of an interdisciplinary Degree Program in Engineering Studies Dr. Jenn Stroud Rossmann, Lafayette College Jenn Stroud Rossmann is Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Co-Director of the Hanson Center for Inclusive STEM Education at Lafayette College. She earned her BS in mechanical engineering and the PhD in applied physics from the University of California, Berkeley. Prior to joining Lafayette, she was a faculty member at Harvey Mudd College. Her scholarly interests include the fluid dynamics of blood in vessels affected by atherosclerosis and aneurysm, the cultural history of engineering, and the aerodynamics of sports projectiles. Dr. Kristen L. Sanford P.E., Lafayette College Dr. Kristen Sanford is an associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lafayette Col- lege. Her expertise is in sustainable civil infrastructure management and transportation systems, and transportation and infrastructure education. She teaches a variety of courses related to transportation and civil infrastructure as well as engineering economics, and for the last ten years she chaired Lafayette’s interdisciplinary Engineering Studies program. Dr. Sanford currently serves on the Transportation Re- search Board Committee on Workforce Development and Organizational Excellence (formerly Education and Training). She previously has served as chair of the ASEE’s Civil Engineering Division, vice-chair of the ASCE Infrastructure Systems Committee, and as a member of several other American Society of Civil Engineers’ education-related committees as well as several other Transportation Research Board technical committees. She received her Ph.D. and M.S. from Carnegie Mellon University, and her B.S.E. from Duke University. Benjamin Cohen, Lafayette College Benjamin R. Cohen is an associate professor at Lafayette College in Easton, PA. He earned his Ph.D. in Science and Technology Studies, after earning bachelor degrees in Chemical Engineering and History, from Virginia Tech. He is the author of Pure Adulteration: Cheating on Nature in the Age of Manufactured Food (2020) and Notes from the Ground: Science, Soil & Society in the American Countryside (2009), and co-editor of Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement (2011). He also writes widely on the history of food, the environment, science, and technology, and the ways engineers contribute to those stories. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 “Asking ‘why’ instead of ‘how’": Outcomes of an interdisciplinary degree program in Engineering Studies Abstract The Engineering Studies Program at Lafayette College has graduated more than 900 majors over its 50-year history. These graduates have gone on to careers in a wide range of roles in a variety of industries. While the major requirements have evolved over time, the core principles of the program – articulated in the program’s founding documents as “Society needs more liberally-educated persons with technical backgrounds” – have not. Thus, as the program celebrates its 50 years of educating sociotechnical citizens, and as society grapples with all-consuming sociotechnical problems – climate change, systemic racism, and pandemic spread and disruption – we are endeavoring to understand how our alumni see themselves and how their sociotechnical education has contributed to their identities and paths. In previous work, the authors have documented the history of the program, its current status, its core curriculum, and the impacts on students in terms of sociotechnical thinking and diversity. It is clear from this work that students approaching graduation do view themselves as sociotechnical thinkers. This analysis also shows that graduates are more diverse in terms of gender than those in other engineering programs on our campus, and more racially/ethnically diverse than both students in other engineering programs and students as a whole at our institution. This paper considers more deeply why the program is successful in developing sociotechnical thinking and in attracting such a diverse group of students to the major and classes. We are investigating alumni perspectives on their experiences in the program as undergraduates and how those experiences have shaped their thinking about themselves, their citizenship, and their careers. The paper summarizes and synthesizes the results of alumni surveys to provide insights. These insights provide faculty at our own and other institutions with lessons that will be useful in considering how to better educate students to be socio-technical thinkers while broadening participation in engineering. Introduction Lafayette College initiated its sociotechnical program of study, first known as its AB in Engineering program, in 1970, the same year it became a coeducational institution. (If these two events were linked, the linkage goes unmentioned in the founding documents for and initial discussions of the degree program.) Lafayette College is an undergraduate liberal arts college with strong, ABET-accredited engineering programs in mechanical, chemical, civil, and electrical engineering and a new BS program in Integrative Engineering. 1 The rationale presented when the program was proposed, in 1969, was that: “Society needs more liberally-educated persons with technical backgrounds. The technology to remedy or alleviate many of man’s pressing public-sector problems exists; the major obstacles are non-technical—e.g. economic, cultural, organizational, legal, political. This is true of housing, environmental pollution, food, education, and so on. These obstacles require the attention of professionals who know what technology can do, can work as or with engineers, and who have the necessary socio-political inclinations and capabilities.” This program was both a natural outgrowth of Lafayette College’s founding principles of liberal education and consistent with the trends in engineering education in the 1960s, which also impacted other institutions [1]. Our campus newspaper greeted the new program with enthusiasm: “It will explore the nature and roles of engineering, the problem solving skills employed by engineers, and the socio-political issues involved in the direction and control of technology,” student journalists wrote in 1970 [2]. Since its 1970 establishment, the program has experienced significant restructuring, including a major 2008 overhaul in focus and curriculum, leading to a name change to Engineering Studies [3]. The foundational vision and motivation remain. The curriculum for the major in Engineering Studies consists of fundamental courses in math, science, and engineering sciences – selected by each student from an approved list – as well as considerable coursework in the traditional liberal arts. The framework for students to integrate all these courses is provided by a three-course required core curriculum in Engineering Studies: Engineering Economics and Management; Engineering & Public Policy; and Engineering and Society [4]. Our Engineering Studies degree program [4] is uniquely well-designed to address two urgent challenges facing engineering education: to educate interdisciplinary thinkers who appreciate that engineering is inherently sociotechnical, and to broaden participation in engineering. Previous studies of the program’s evolution, curriculum, and outcomes have been performed from the perspective of faculty members [3,4,5]. The student voices quoted in those studies suggested that the core curriculum of Engineering Studies cultivated a sociotechnical perspective, for example: ● “One of the most valuable skills that [the program] has taught me is this skill of asking ‘why’ not ‘how.’ Asking ‘how’ typically results in a methodological solution, rather than a solution that conveys understanding. Asking ‘why’ instead of ‘how’ has resulted in a better understanding of the reasoning behind things, as well as an increased awareness of the methodology.” ● “Contextual understanding is the greatest strength a senior engineering studies (EGRS) major possesses and while other Engineers are trained to problem solve with their design goals in mind, EGRS majors are taught to go beyond the straight-forward analysis and consider other, non-technical factors. EGRS [majors] look towards social, economic, and political factors (among others) to fully comprehend the problem at hand. In doing so, EGRS majors are better equipped to make informed decisions on project alternatives. This ability to understand the subtle nuances of complex technical problems makes EGRS majors the intermediary between traditionally trained engineers and society.” 2 Engineering Studies graduates are more diverse in terms of gender than are the College’s graduates with BS degrees in engineering, and they are more diverse in terms of ethnicity than both those with BS Engineering degrees and students with degrees in disciplines other than engineering [3]. Clearly, the Engineering Studies Program is a place where women and students of color feel comfortable. However, given the challenges in messaging that historically have surrounded the program (e.g., a perception that the degree is less “rigorous” and therefore less “valuable” than a BS in engineering), concerns persist about ghettoization – that is, e.g., a perception that because the program is more attractive to women and students of color it must be less valuable [6]. We have found that such concerns are more commonly voiced by faculty than by students [3],