Classical paradigms versus complexity thinking in engineering education: an essential discussion in the education for sustainable development

被引:26
作者
Sigahi, Tiago F. A. C. [1 ]
Simon Rampasso, Izabela [2 ]
Anholon, Rosley [1 ]
Sznelwar, Laerte Idal [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Estadual Campinas, Sch Mech Engn, Campinas, Brazil
[2] Univ Catolica Norte, Dept Ingn Ind, Anfogasta, Chile
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Prod Engn, Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
Engineering education; Sustainable development; Complexity; Paradigm; Education for sustainability; Complex systems; TRADE-OFFS; INTEGRATION; INDICATORS; CURRICULUM; STUDENTS; GOALS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1108/IJSHE-11-2021-0472
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose This paper aims to discuss how the theory of complex thinking can be considered an interesting element in engineering education, especially in the context in which challenges toward sustainable development are multidisciplinary. Design/methodology/approach This viewpoint synthesizes the main reflections and discussions generated during a process of debate, research and creation of a proposal for an undergraduate engineering course at a higher education institution in Brazil. The literature on engineering education, sustainability and complexity was considered in an integrated way. Debates were conducted considering the authors' knowledge and experience as professors of engineering courses and researchers in the field of sustainability. A qualitative and reflexive approach was used to organize the main discussions. Findings The prevailing classical engineering paradigm trains professionals to think from a Cartesian, reductionist perspective, appropriate for solving well-structured problems with known solution paths and convergent answers. However, addressing sustainability challenges requires a different kind of thinking capable of dealing with situations characterized by uncertainty, emergence and incompleteness of knowledge. Complexity thinking can be useful for this purpose as it provides a broad system approach to deal with ill-defined, ill-structured and unpredictable problems. This study can be understood as a call to researchers and professionals to consider the value and importance of complexity thinking to advance engineering education for sustainability. Originality/value The need to overcome the limits of the classical engineering paradigm is emphasized in the context of sustainability. Complex thinking is considered as a path toward a paradigm shift in engineering education for sustainability. It can contribute to the training of professionals to face pressing challenges now and in the future. This viewpoint provides some insights to enhance debates on education engineering.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 192
页数:14
相关论文
共 75 条
  • [1] The COVID-19 pandemic and the growing need to train engineers aligned to the sustainable development goals
    Anholon, Rosley
    Rampasso, Izabela Simon
    Silva, Diogo A. L.
    Filho, Walter Leal
    Goncalves Quelhas, Osvaldo Luiz
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2020, 21 (06) : 1269 - 1275
  • [2] Incorporating sustainability in engineering curriculum: a study of the Australian universities
    Arefin, Md. Arman
    Nabi, Md. Nurun
    Sadeque, Saalem
    Gudimetla, Prasad
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2021, 22 (03) : 576 - 598
  • [3] Sustainable development goal indicators: Analyzing trade-offs and complementarities
    Barbier, Edward B.
    Burgess, Joanne C.
    [J]. WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 2019, 122 : 295 - 305
  • [4] Integrating social sustainability in engineering education at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology
    Bjornberg, Karin Edvardsson
    Skogh, Inga-Britt
    Stromberg, Emma
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2015, 16 (05) : 639 - 649
  • [5] Contribution of ergonomics and human factors to sustainable development: a systematic literature review
    Bolis, Ivan
    Albuquerque Cavalcanti Sigahi, Tiago Fonseca
    Thatcher, Andrew
    Saltorato, Patricia
    Morioka, Sandra Naomi
    [J]. ERGONOMICS, 2023, 66 (03) : 303 - 321
  • [6] Defining the meaning of "sustainable work" from activity-centered ergonomics and psychodynamics of Work's perspectives
    Brunoro, Claudio M.
    Bolis, Ivan
    Sigahi, Tiago F. A. C.
    Kawasaki, Bruno C.
    Sznelwar, Laerte, I
    [J]. APPLIED ERGONOMICS, 2020, 89
  • [7] Byrne D., 2013, Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art, V1st, DOI DOI 10.4324/9780203519585
  • [8] Exploring sustainability themes in engineering accreditation and curricula
    Byrne, Edmond P.
    Desha, Cheryl J.
    Fitzpatrick, John J.
    Hargroves, Karlson 'Charlie'
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2013, 14 (04) : 384 - 403
  • [9] Teaching engineering ethics with sustainability as context
    Byrne, Edmond P.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2012, 13 (03) : 232 - 248
  • [10] Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education?
    Cech, Erin A.
    [J]. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2014, 39 (01) : 42 - 72