A new engineering course at a large land-grant university seeks to introduce non-engineers to the profession via a combination of artistic endeavors, social science analyses, engineering design thinking, and community practice. The course introduces a new concept, “citizen engineering,” borrowed from a tradition of citizen science in which community members (“non-experts”) identify scientific questions and proceed through a formal process, such as participatory action research, to systematically seek answers to their questions by defining and driving their own processes of inquiry and analysis, sometimes but not always with the cooperation of trained scientists.
The course first introduces multiple definitions of engineering and citizenship for critical discussion, develops the idea of citizen engineering from citizen science, and then proceeds to a unit on making where students ponder through examination of examples from art exhibits and popular media what kinds of activities might constitute making, and which might constitute citizen engineering, and why. The students engage in various making activities including a short project in which they design and build prototypes of an artifact to improve dorm life. After this, students gain an introduction to engineering studies through analysis of the co-construction of technology and society, and through examining the roles of citizens in large engineering projects such as nuclear power or gas pipelines. Throughout the course there is an underlying argument that non-engineers can and should engage engineering, problematizing the notion of engineering expertise as unique. A series of short essays encourage students to analyze engineering as a profession and consider their own roles as citizen engineers with the power to intervene as non-experts in engineering activities that impact society.
In this first iteration of the course, one of the authors served as a participant-observer and ethnographer focused on student learning. The observer witnessed student engagement with course topics and with one another, and interviewed students in the class (n=5). Using the observer’s analysis of his observation notes and interview responses, and using the instructors’ analysis of student work and course feedback, we reflect on the outcomes of this first iteration of the course and consider avenues for improvement.
Although the course was designed for non-engineers and particularly students outside of STEM fields, those who enrolled for this iteration were three seniors majoring in the sciences, and three first year students who intend to major in engineering but are not yet admitted to the engineering college. This population of students struggled with critical analysis and in particular with the central argument of the course that engineering ought to be democratized, that non-engineers can make crucial contributions that improve engineering practice and hold engineering accountable for its roles in society. Improved reading selection, better scaffolding for more challenging readings, alterations to pace and depth for certain concepts such as ethics, and smoothing out logistical challenges with the course should result in improved student learning.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper?
Visit the ASEE document repository at
for more tools and easy citations.