Convergence: Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs

Joshua Pearce

Convergence: Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs

Uploaded by
Joshua Pearce

Edited By: Thomas H. Colledge, PhD, PE Convergence Research Social Entrepreneurship Frugal Engineering Humanitarian Engineering Interdisciplinary Service Learning in Engineering Reﬂecton Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs Sustainability Frugal Innovaton International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) Edited By: Thomas H. Colledge, PhD, PE Convergence Research Social Entrepreneurship Frugal Engineering Humanitarian Engineering Interdisciplinary Service Learning in Engineering Reﬂecton Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs Sustainability Frugal Innovaton Rice University students engaging members of the ‘Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs’ - Class of 2019* *Beach, K.E., et al, Integrating Research, Undergraduate Education and Engineering Outreach, International Journal for Service Learn- ing in Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 89-101, 2007 “…..service learning ‘should be viewed as among the most powerful of teaching procedures, if the teaching goal is lasting learning that can be used to shape student’s lives around the world.’”* *Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. (Washington, DC: Na- tional Association for Higher Education, 1999). Convergence: Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs ©, 2012, by the Interna- tional Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE), under a Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY– ShareAlike license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as credit is provided for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Printed in the United States of America. Published by the International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) and supported by the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) and the College of Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University. ISBN 978-0-615-60997-3 v Acknowledgements The editors of the International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) sincerely appreciate the support received for the Journal and this book from the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA), The Pennsylvania State University, and Queen’s University. A special thanks to Bonnie Osif, Rachel Dzombak, Melanie Fedri, Bridget Dougher and Toral Zaveri for their critiquing and proofreading efforts on the book. vi From the Editor: Over the years, there have been many in- novative and daring souls from around the world; faculty members, researchers, practitioners, and students, who have sought to nurture a spirit within the engineering and entrepreneurship communities; a spirit which encourages the as- sumption of leadership and use of academic skills to tackle some of the most pressing problems of marginalized peoples around the world – while implementing pedagogies and engaging in proj- ects which produce a better educated student and citizen. Recognizing the need for a ‘convergence’ of interdisciplinary col- laboration, academic rigor, cultural awareness, sustainability, entrepre- neurial skills, and applied research, these pioneers have begun to coalesce around the notion that by collaboratively employing their skills, they may in fact achieve both goals. These efforts have been undertaken under many names: service learning in engineering, humanitarian engineering, social entrepreneurship, frugal engineering, and others. In the process, a sense of community has begun to be forged. In an effort to facilitate this movement, the International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) was founded in 2006 to provide an outlet for the scholarly work of this emergent community. The Journal seeks to nurture such efforts as a distinct body of knowledge. IJSLE is proud to have worked with the various contributing authors of this book to provide background and context to those who may wish to learn more about what we feel is one of the most exciting pedagogical move- ments in higher education today – the enhancement of rigorous experiential learning opportunities for students while concurrently making a meaning- ful, sustainable difference in the lives of marginalized people around the world. On behalf of the editors of IJSLE, I encourage you to participate in this exciting academic arena and to consider disseminating your work through the IJSLE. Thomas H. Colledge, PhD, PE Editor-in-Chief, IJSLE vii From the Sponsor: Every generation has an emblematic edu- cational innovation that over time becomes part of the ‘normal’ approach to training the next gen- eration. The experiential, socially beneficial learn- ing approaches that are the focus of this volume are no doubt such hallmark innovations. It is crit- ical that the learning and practices of the pioneers in this field are documented and disseminated and for that reason, we at NCIIA are pleased to have been able to support the formation and emergence of the IJSLE and the creation of this volume. The National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) is a US educational non-profit focused on stimulating and supporting the next generation of inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs. With a mem- bership of nearly 200 colleges and universities from all over the United States, the NCIIA engages more than 5,000 student and faculty innova- tors and entrepreneurs each year, helping them to bring their concepts to commercialization. Through the support of this field we hope to catalyze new ap- proaches to education that give rise to empathetic innovators equipped with the tools, experience and attitude to apply science and technology in an entrepreneurial way to make the world a better place. I thank you for your interest in engaging in this effort and welcome your participation in our emerging community. Phil Weilerstein Executive Director NCIIA viii IJSLE Managing Editors Thomas H. Colledge, PE, Editor-in-Chief, Assistant Professor, Engineering Design, Penn State University, thc100@psu.edu Lonny Grafman, Executive Editor, Humboldt State University, lrg3@humboldt.edu Usman Mushtaq, Manuscript Editor, Queen’s University, usman.mushtaq@queensu.ca Joshua Pearce, Manuscript Editor, Associate Professor, Michigan Technological University, pearce@mtu.edu IJSLE Editorial Board Michael Adewumi, Vice Provost, International Programs, Penn State University, m2a@IP.psu.edu Angela Bielefeldt, PE, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Angela.Bielefeldt@Colorado.edu Jeff Brown, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, Hope College, jbrown@hope.edu Camille George, Associate Professor, ME Program Director, St. Thomas University, cmgeorge@stthomas.edu Mark Henderson, Professor, College of Technology Innovation, ASU Polytechnic, mark.henderson@asu.edu Luan Lucena, Associate Professor, Colorardo School of Mines, jlucena@mines.edu David Muñoz, Associate Professor, Colorado School of Mines, dmunoz@mines.edu Margaret Pinnell, Associate Professor, University of Dayton, mpinnell1@udayton.edu William Oakes, Associate Professor, Director, EPICS, Purdue, oakes@purdue.edu Beena Sukumaran, Professor and Chair of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rowan University, sukumaran@rowan.edu Olga Pierrakos, Assistant Professor, School of Engineering, James Madison University, pierraox@jmu.edu Trevor S. Harding, Chair and Professor, Materials Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, tharding@calpoly.edu ix Contributing Authors Dr. Manuel C. Belino, Dean, School of Mechanical Engineering, Mapúa Institute of Technology, Manila, Philippines, mcbelino@mapua.edu.ph Dr. Angela Bielefeldt, PE, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Angela.Bielefeldt@Colorado.edu Debbi Brock, Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship, Anderson University, ddbrock@anderson.edu Dr. Nalini Chhetri, Professor, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, nalini.chhetri@asu.edu Dr. Thomas H. Colledge, PE, Assistant Professor, Engineering Design, Editor-in-Chief, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE), Penn State University, thc100@psu.edu Dr. Mark Henderson, Professor, Department of Engineering, College of Technology Innovation, ASU Polytechnic, mark.henderson@asu.edu Dr. Martina Jordaan, Senior Lecturer, Community Based Project Module, Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, martina.jordaan@up.ac.za Dr. Lois A. Jordan, PE, Visiting Professor, Department of Management, The University of Tampa, ljordan@ut.edu Khanjan Mehta, Director, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE), Penn State University, krm209@psu.edu Dr. Carl Mitcham, Professor, Liberal Arts and International Studies Division, Director of the Hennebach Program for the Humanities, Colorado School of Mines, cmitcham@mines.edu x Dr. David R. Muñoz, Associate Professor, Engineering Division, Director, Humanitarian Engineering Minor Program, Colorado School of Mines, dmunoz@mines.edu Usman Mushtaq, Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, usman.mushtaq@queensu.ca Dr. William Oakes, Associate Professor, Engineering Education, Director, EPICS, Purdue University, oakes@purdue.edu Dan O’Neill, Director, Venture Acceleration, ASU Venture Catalyst, Arizona State University, dan.oneill@asu.edu Dr. Carlos R. Paredes, Dean, College of Engineering, University of the Valley of Guatemala, cparedes@uvg.edu.gt Dr. Joshua M. Pearce, Associate Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering and Department of Electrical and Computing Engineering, Michigan Technological University, pearce@mtu.edu Dr. Bradley Rogers, Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Technology, College of Technology Innovation, ASU Polytechnic, BRogers@asu.edu Dr. Susan D. Steiner, CPA, Associate Professor, Chair, Department of Management, The University of Tampa, ssteiner@ut.edu Dr. John Takamura, Assistant Professor, Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts, Arizona State University, John.Takamura@asu.edu Table of Contents Acknowledgments v Editors: International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship viii Contributing Authors ix Introduction 2 by: Thomas H. Colledge Chapter 1: Rationale 6 by: Thomas H. Colledge Chapter 2: Service Learning in Engineering 24 by: Angela Bielefeldt and Joshua Pearce Chapter 3: Humanitarian Engineering 54 by: David R. Muñoz and Carl Mitcham Chapter 4: Using the Social Entrepreneurship Model 80 to Teach Engineering Students How to Create Lasting Social Change by: Debbi Brock, Susan Steiner, Lois Jordan Chapter 5: Frugal Innovation 96 by: Dan O’Neill, John Takamura, Nalini Chhetri, Mark Henderson, Bradley Rogers Chapter 6: The Philosophy and Praxis of Convergence 114 to Shape an Emergent High-Impact Learning Through Service Program by: Khanjan Mehta Chapter 7: Learning Through Service: Best Practices 146 by: William Oakes Chapter 8: International Perspectives on Service Learning 178 by: Manuel C. Belino, Martina Jordaan, Carlos R. Paredes Chapter 9: Open Access Scholarly Knowledge: 204 a Common Wealth by: Usman Mustaq Chapter 10: Stakeholders 214 xi 1 “Adreamerisonewhocanonlyﬁndhiswayby moonlight,andhispunishmentisthatheseesthe dawnbeforetherestoftheworld.” — Oscar Wilde Students from the University of Virginia discuss their water treatment design with community leaders in Venda, South Africa……. ….and share the task of transporting sand for use in construction of the ﬁlters. 2 e editors of the International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) are pleased and proud to have collaborated with faculty from around the world to provide you with this book. is eﬀort would not have been possible without the support and assistance from the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) as well as the American Society of Me- chanical Engineers (ASME) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). e intent of the book is to detail a number of academic programs and pedagogies being implemented at various universities around the world which seek to ‘do good’ (through collaboration with people in mar- ginalized communities to alleviate pressing problems they experience) while ‘doing well’ (for students in terms of enhancing their academic and ‘real world’ learning). We also wanted to pass along some suggested best practices should you choose to develop your own similar program. A ﬁnal goal in producing the book is to encourage those engaged in such eﬀorts to disseminate the results of their work in the IJSLE. IJSLE publishes the original work of practitioners and researchers who have a speciﬁc focus on projects, programs, research and pedagogy that involve Humanitarian Engineering, Social Entrepreneurship, Frugal Engineering and Service Learning in Engineering. e primary purpose of the journal is to foster inquiry into rigorous engineering design, re- search and entrepreneurship eﬀorts which are directed toward solving problems of marginalized communities. e journal seeks to nurture Hu- manitarian Engineering, Social Entrepreneurship, Frugal Engineering and Service Learning in Engineering as a distinct body of knowledge. Given the growing interest in such programs across the country (and INTRODUCTION omas H. Colledge, PhD, PE e Pennsylvania State University indeed the world), as well as the variety of names and titles which describe such eﬀorts, the editors felt it worthwhile to provide a primer for faculty, administrators, community leaders, and other interested parties which might assist them in better understanding the diﬀerences and similarities amongst the various programs. It is also hoped that this book might serve as a source of information and context for the existing community of practitioners at universities, those dreamers, who have set their hearts and passionate aspirations on using their academic training and skills to ad- dress the problems of those around the world who lack the resources and/or wherewithal to do so for themselves. Primary constituents of this intended audience are engineering and entrepreneurship faculty and their students. It is recognized, however, that to be successful, many other disciplines critical to such ventures must be drawn from, including: business, education, agriculture, science, human development and liberal arts among others. As such, another key objec- tive of this book is to encourage and facilitate multidisciplinary collabo- ration when addressing the problems of marginalized communities. is book, then, is intended to serve as a resource book for those who wish to learn more about what we feel is one of the most exciting pedagogical movements in higher education today – the enhancement of collaborative learning by those involved in such eﬀorts (students, faculty, practicing engineers and other professionals, community members) while concurrently making a meaningful, sustainable diﬀerence in the lives of marginalized people around the world. In the following chapters, a number of educational programs and approaches will be discussed along with tools to facilitate such inter-dis- ciplinary, collaborative eﬀorts. ese programs and their deﬁnitions, as provided by the authors of the respective chapters, are as follows: - Humanitarian Engineering: e artful drawing upon of science to direct the resources of nature with active compassion to meet the basic needs of all—especially the economically poor, or otherwise marginalized, always seeking a balance of listening and learning from the traditional people while humbly sharing appropriate engineering knowledge. 3 - Social Entrepreneurship: e creation of social impact by developing and implementing a sustainable business model which draws on innovative solutions that beneﬁt the disadvantaged and, ultimately, society at large. - Frugal Engineering: e complete rethinking and rebuilding of the product/process development process in order to design, develop and deliver innovative solu- tions to customers at the Base-of-the-Pyramid (BOP). - Service Learning in Engineering: A form of experiential education which combines community service and academic instruction with critical, reﬂective thinking and civic responsibility. ese program types often overlap in purpose, activities, and meth- ods, but all seek to engage students in meaningful, transformative, real life adventures and educational experiences while simultaneously making a diﬀerence in the lives of others who lack the means to improve their own lives. It is hoped that the information contained in the book will provide greater insight and motivation for those who may be considering ‘doing good while doing well’ to not only improve the lives of those in the world who lack the means to do so themselves, but also to have their students beneﬁt from the active learning environments which are inherent in such eﬀorts. 4 5 “Andletitbenotedthatthereisnomoredelicate mattertotakeinhand,normoredangeroustocon- duct,normoredoubtfulinitssuccess,thantosetup astheleaderintheintroductionofchanges.Forhe whoinnovateswillhaveforhisenemiesallthosewho arewelloﬀundertheexistingorderofthings,and onlylukewarmsupportersinthosewhomightbebet- teroﬀunderthenew.” — Niccolò Machiavelli e Prince Mapúa Institute of Technology students testing their hydroturbine-generator e result: e ﬁrst night ever with electricity in Sitio Henalong, Philippines 6 Historically, the undertaking of service projects – engaging margin- alized individuals or communities in improving some facet of their lives - has been viewed by many as simply doing ‘nice things for poor people’. Student ‘service learning’ eﬀorts often include projects such as painting orphanages, repairing roofs, reading to children, and so on. It is recog- nized that such altruistic eﬀorts certainly have value as students gain cul- tural awareness, civic responsibility, and develop critical leadership skills while simultaneously satisfying a real need experienced by the partnering community. e literature details the beneﬁts of a variety of forms of service learning experiences. Showing ‘solidarity with the poor’ and mak- ing a human connection are necessary to sustain hope and thus aﬀect change, and are powerful and essential elements in ‘making the world a better place’. However, more often than not, the types of service projects being undertaken were such that the marginalized communities could very well have accomplished all they needed to do simply by having the funds to undertake the projects themselves. Engagement, resulting in high value addition, empowerment, and sustainability of eﬀorts, was not commonly achieved through this form of service learning. is may help to explain the knee-jerk reaction by many to the notion of service learning projects as being merely educational ‘ﬂuﬀ’; that is, the engagement in projects as ‘service’ being without rigorous academic value and the sustainable value addition for marginalized communities was minimal. More rigorous academic learning opportunities, particularly for en- gineers, which would directly and sustainably beneﬁt the marginalized communities, were not commonly available. is was the case for a va- riety of reasons: no formal, technical mentoring was aﬀorded students ei- ther through projects embedded in courses or by other means of formal CHAPTER 1 Rationale omas H. Colledge, PhD, PE e Pennsylvania State University mentoring, insuﬃcient logistical support, poor communications, lack of funding, unsustainable collaborations and partnerships in place, and so on. e hurdles to rigorous academic engagement were indeed high. e end result, however, was clear. ough not commonly undertaken as ‘service’, a need existed for signiﬁcant, high-impact projects requiring technical proﬁciency, a deep understanding of communities’ social and cultural contexts, and realistic assessments of customer and market needs, and sustainable implementation of designed solutions. At the same time, there exists a persistent and growing need to ad- dress problems confronting a huge proportion of humanity - those at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP). is phrase, BOP, refers to the 2.5 billion people who live on less than $2.50 per day 1 , as ﬁrst deﬁned in 1998 by Professors C.K. Prahalad and Stuart L. Hart. It was subsequently ex- panded upon by both in their books: e Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid by Prahalad 2 and Capitalism at the Crossroads by Hart 3 . ese billions of people often lack access to basic necessities, such as: adequate housing, energy, water quantity and quality, wastewater treatment, eﬃ- cient agricultural products/processes, as well as meaningful employment opportunities. Essential in addressing these issues, aside from technical expertise but equally important, are potential entrepreneurial solutions to ensure economic sustainability as well as social and cultural acceptance of such solutions. Many of these problems might be best addressed by engineers in collaboration with other professionals. e nature of these vast needs often motivate many engineers, business men and woman, social scien- tists, and others to desire to make a diﬀerence, to engage in and address such problems. But altruism alone does not govern such actions by these practitioners. Practical beneﬁts are derived from such participation, par- ticularly for students. For example, future markets may lie precisely in these emerging areas. As such, cultural familiarity, technological compe- tency, language and networking skills will be needed to successfully function in such markets. In addition, globalization dictates the need for engineers and others to be prepared to collaborate with colleagues around the world in addition to being familiar with such markets. Engineers have a long track record of addressing the needs of people. 7 8 From the design and construction of bridges which facilitate the transport of food stuﬀs to market, to developing life-saving pharmaceuticals, to de- velopment of electrical devices which lighten life’s burdens, and on and on. Engineering, as a discipline, has improved the lives of many billions of people around the world over time. In spite of all the technological successes achieved by engineers over the centuries though, most engineering interventions have been directed to just a tiny fraction of the world’s population. By some estimates, 90% of all engineering design impacts just 10% of the world’s population. A great demand exists for engineering solutions which address problems of those least able to aﬀord expertly designed systems. For many, this may be viewed as a moral issue, an imperative to act. But, unfortunately, eco- nomic constraints serve to prevent many from acting in this regard. ere are no economic forces that drive participation by trained engineers to address the problems of most of the world. Given that 80% of the world makes less than $10 per day, one avenue which might attract such tech- nical expertise to address the problems of the poor is to couch the problem in an entrepreneurial light – that is, to consider those 5.6 billion people as a potential market. If proper incentives are present, design of solutions will follow. And if entrepreneurial energy, creativity, and collaborative ef- forts are unleashed, real results might be achieved. It is against this backdrop that programs such as Humanitarian En- gineering, Social Entrepreneurship, Frugal Engineering and Service Learn- ing in Engineering have evolved and subsequently found themselves confronting skeptics; both as to the academic value of such eﬀorts, and in other quarters, the true value of the projects being implemented in the communities themselves. Students, faculty and administrators often easily make the connec- tion between the value of such programs and ﬁnding employment with organizations like the Peace Corp or various non-governmental organi- zations (NGOs). However, quite often they do not make the critical con- nection between these eﬀorts and the needs of the next generation of engineers and entrepreneurs. It will be useful to brieﬂy describe those objectives of engineering education as detailed by a) the National Acad- emy of Engineering, b) the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Tech- nology, and c) industry and see how such programs ﬁt with these objec- tives and do not simply serve as a means to do ‘nice things for poor peo- ple’. It will also be useful to elaborate upon the expectations, beneﬁts and hurdles of such eﬀorts by a variety of stakeholders including: universities, colleges, departments, faculty, students and communities. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) From a professional development standpoint, the National Academy of Engineering’s report ‘e Engineer of 2020’ 4 laid out a vision of what skills and attributes engineers will need to be successful in the coming decades. e report suggests that engineering education should empha- size the development of students as emerging professionals and educated citizens, “equally at home with societal concerns as they are with tech- nical issues.” ey stress the need for engineers to continue to possess strong analytical skills, but to expand the engineering design space such that the impacts of social systems and their associated constraints are af- forded as much attention as economic, legal, and political constraints (e.g., resource management, standards, and accountability requirements). ey foresee engineers needing to concentrate on systemic outcomes in the same ways that focused outcomes are considered. An excellent example of an endeavor which addresses such goals would be that of the ‘Mashavu: Networked Health Solutions’ ven- ture developed at Penn State. In the United States there are 390 people for every physi- cian. In many parts of East Africa, that ratio is 50,000 people for every physician. Many peo- ple in these communi- ties have especially high instances of communicable diseases and infection, in addition to malnutrition. Inadequate prevention and treatment of these 9 FIGURE 1.1 A COMMON EAST AFRICAN HOUSEHOLD problems is directly related to the lack of available medical care. For indi- viduals living on less than $2 a day, as is typical in rural Kenya, the trans- portation cost to reach a doctor amounts to two days’ income. e cost of transportation, combined with the long lines that are typical at health clin- ics, lead many people to wait until they have a medical emergency before seeking any form of care. As an engineer, as part of a multidisciplinary team in programs such as the Humanitarian Engineering and Social En- trepreneurship (HESE) program at Penn State for example, students are asked to address such ill-deﬁned problems – and actually implement sus- tainable solutions! Clearly, the technical skills employed by students in disciplines such as electrical engineering, computer science, bioengineering, among others could be envisioned as critical to such an eﬀort. Equally challenging, however, is requiring the students to collaborate in a multidisciplinary fashion taking into consideration the cultural, economic, legal and polit- ical constraints in the East African context. Intimate familiarity with the social context is inherent in the process. e need for practical ingenuity by engineers will continue to be a mainstay in engineering education and in their professional careers. For example, issues related to climate change, the environment, and the in- tersections between technology and social/ public policies are be- coming increasingly important. Creativity (invention, innovation, thinking outside the box, art) is an indis- pensable quality for en- gineering. e creativity requisite for engineer- ing will change only in the sense that the problems to be solved may require synthesis of a broader range of interdisciplinary knowledge and a greater focus on sys- temic constructs and outcomes. 10 FIGURE 1.2 MASHAVU MEDICAL TESTING 11 For the Mashavu system, engineering students have designed low- cost medical devices that gather vital information including: images, body temperature, lung capacity, height/weight, blood oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and stethoscope rhythms. ey have additionally created a web- based portal that transmits the gathered information to medical personal anywhere in the world. Multidisciplinary design teams are assembled and perform as a team. Besides engineering students, students from medicine, law, international aﬀairs, business, human development, geography, com- munications, and education among others take part on the teams. e synergies developed through such multi-year, multidisciplinary engage- ment provide fertile ground for creative and innovative design solutions while employing a systems approach. As always, good engineering requires good communication skills. Engineering must engage multiple stakeholders—government, private in- dustry, and the public. Parties that engineering ties together must involve interdisciplinary teams, globally diverse team members, public oﬃ- cials, and a global customer base. Imagine the Mashavu teams, collaborating with their counterparts from East Africa via the internet, and developing solutions to address the health care problem by connecting medical professionals to rural commu- nities in East Africa using modern technology and communications infra- structure. is is accomplished by ensuring that Web servers aggregate the information from various stations and provide it to medical professionals anywhere in the world through the online portal. FIGURE 1.3 MASHAVU SYSTEM 12 With the growing interdependence between technology and the economic and social foundations of modern society, an increasing number of opportunities for engineers to exercise their potential as leaders in busi- ness and management must be provided, not only in business but also in the nonproﬁt and government sectors. Policy decisions in technolog- ical societies demand the attention of leaders who understand the strengths and limitations of science and technology. In this regard, think of the practical aspects of developing business plans for the Mashavu venture. Plans that ensure that the medical pro- fessionals have incentives to supervise the health of the patients and pro- vide medical feedback, as do the Mashavu kiosk operators who staﬀ such systems. e business planning, supply chains, user-centered design needs, and the impact of employment for the local population all are of critical importance to the designer. Students interact with government regulators, policy makers and engage in discussions on altering how health care is delivered in such marginalized communities. ese experiences directly lead to engineers understanding the principles of leadership and being able to practice them in growing proportions as their careers advance. How they must also acknowledge the signiﬁcance and importance of pub- lic service and its place in society, stretching their traditional comfort zone and accepting the challenge of bridging public policy and tech- nology well beyond the roles accepted in the past. Complementary to the necessity for strong leadership ability on such projects is the need to also possess a working framework upon which high ethical standards and a strong sense of professionalismcan be de- veloped. ese are supported by boldness and courage. Striving to suc- ceed in a resource constrained environment, while directly impacting the lives of people, places the students in the front lines in terms of boldly leading such diﬃcult eﬀorts. e ‘gray’ choices to be made, balancing (for example) economic, social, environmental, and gender-related factors, with cost constraints provide the context for students to beneﬁt through a sense of purpose and clarity. e novel solutions arrived at by the Mashavu team demonstrates the success of eﬀorts in terms the students employing the dynamism, agility, resilience, and ﬂexibility required to make ‘it’ happen. Not only is technology changing quickly, but the social-political-economic world in which engineers work changes continuously as well. In this context, it is not ‘this or that’ particular knowledge that engineers need, but rather, the ability to think critically, learn new things quickly and the ability to apply knowledge to new problems and new contexts. Being able to adapt, to solve problems on the ground, with time constraints, in East Africa surely works to facilitate these particular identiﬁed educational goals for the students. NAE stresses that for students to be individually and personally suc- cessful, they need to learn continuously throughout their careers; and not just about engineering but also about history, politics, business, and social customs. Encompassed in this theme is the imperative for engineers to be lifelong learners. For Mashavu members, after returning from their travel to East Africa, they write scholarly papers for publication and dis- semination as well as reﬂect on their achievements. Such activities allow the Mashavu team members to gain perspective as well as recognize the need for lifelong learning. e exciting and highly motivational opportunities to address nearly every one of the skills to be developed in engineering students, as identi- ﬁed by NAE, are addressed by the students participating in such projects, AND, the community beneﬁts through its implementation. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Similar objectives are reﬂected in the Accreditation Board for En- gineering and Technology (ABET)’s Engineering Criteria Outcomes 3a- 3k. It is suggested that students be immersed in engineering design and practice, incorporating societal, economic, and cultural concerns in the design process, as early and as pervasively as possible. In an eﬀort to high- light the movement toward emphasizing these ‘soft skills’, the ABET EC 2000, Criterion 3, a-k processing skills are categorized as follows: ‘Technical’ engineering goals within ABET goals: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data 13 (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. More ‘holistic, but engineering-related’ goals within ABET goals: (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context ‘Broad, common’ educational goals contained within ABET goals: (d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams (f ) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) an ability to communicate eﬀectively (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues Note how the last seven of the eleven criteria listed lend themselves directly to the real life contexts such as the HESE projects at Penn State oﬀer. Indeed, such projects may be easily adapted to address all eleven of the criteria by requiring rigorous technical components to the project(s). Industry A number of ‘transferable skills’ for graduates have been identiﬁed and sought by industry, government and business, as well as higher edu- cation. ese skills have been identiﬁed in the U.S. Department of Labor’s SCANS 2 Report 5 which elaborated the actions and outcomes re- quired of educational institutions in preparing students for the workplace; e Center for Improved Engineering and Science Education report en- titled Edu-Trends 6 elaborated the actions and outcomes required of edu- cational institutions; and the Boeing Corporation and its list of what it 14 15 considers to be the desired attributes of an engineer 7 . e American So- ciety for Engineering Education (ASEE) has also advocated reshaping en- gineering education including: more emphasis on teamwork in the engineering curriculum, to stress the global context in which engineering is practiced today, and diversity in the engineering ﬁeld. A synthesis of these various ‘transferable skills’ is summarized in Table 1.1. Many of these ‘transferable skills’ listed are actually learning processes – meaning; you do not merely memorize, apply, analyze, syn- thesize or evaluate in classroom lectures and homework problems. Rather, these skills are acquired through application and practice. e major types of learning processes that are sought in the engineering classroom are: learning how to think (metacognitive skills); how to solve problems, how to think creatively, and how to think critically. Providing an underlying theoretical foundation for such concepts is valuable, but just as important is the opportunity to engage in the practice of such skills to nurture them and develop them. e question becomes how best to incorporate such learning processes into an already crowded curriculum? Citizenship/Social Responsibility Adaptable & Flexible Ethics Lifelong Learning Application (Context) to the Real World (including business, history, economics, etc.) Information and Technology Literacy Teamwork Multidisciplinary TABLE 1.1 TRANSFERABLE SKILLS Problem Solving Creativity Critical Communication Skills Manage Complexity in a Systems Environment Leadership Self Actualization Curiosity 16 Stakeholders: Expectations, Beneﬁts and Hurdles In order to incorporate such programs into the curriculum in a for- mal educational setting, there must be perceived beneﬁts for multiple stakeholders. ese include the university, colleges and departments, fac- ulty, students and the community partners themselves. e University e mission statement of Penn State University, for example, states that the institution “educates students from Pennsylvania, the nation and the world, and improves the well being and health of individuals and communities through integrated programs of teaching, research, and serv- ice” 8 . is is precisely one deﬁnition of service learning. e mission statement goes on to say that the University “engages in collaborative ac- tivities…….with partners here and abroad to generate, disseminate, in- tegrate, and apply knowledge that is valuable to society.” Clearly the university has an interest in engaging students and faculty to apply their academic talents to address problems of communities. HESE ventures at Penn State allow the University to be visibly re- sponsive to society’s needs. “Often this enhances the public image of the university and can positively impact the curriculum, student recruitment and retention, alumni relations, sense of community on campus, and the success of fund-raising eﬀorts. HESE-type ventures provide good public relations and allows the University to be seen as a good member of the global community as opposed to an isolated ‘ivy tower 9 .’” To achieve these beneﬁts it is incumbent upon the University to promote and elevate HESE-type programs as one of the integral, core goals of its mission – in addition to research and teaching. e beneﬁts of this service component can only be attained if there is an intentional emphasis placed on it in the form of institutional rewards and incentives. is may include examining promotion and tenure procedures, providing administrative support and curricular opportunities to facilitate such em- phasis on service learning for all stakeholders: the University, students, faculty, colleges and departments, and communities at large. Colleges and Departments Globalization has been a process that has increased the interconnect- edness between nations and peoples of the world. It has put increased pres- sure on educational institutions, speciﬁcally the universities, colleges, and departments, to prepare students for life in an increasingly connected and borderless world. One of the main functions of an internationalized cur- riculum is the ‘formation of the skills….required to operate in the global environment itself ’ 10 . us internationalization of the curriculum is clearly linked to globalization, and relates to ‘those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, a global society’ 11 . Students face a future in which they will need more than just a dis- cipline-speciﬁc background to be successful. In setting the goals for any project or task they may be asked to undertake, students will be expected to interact eﬀectively with people of widely varying social, cultural and educational backgrounds. ey will then be expected to work with people from many diﬀerent disciplines to achieve these goals. e concept of HESE-type programs and student engagement with communities directly addresses these issues. ey need educational experiences that help them develop these skills through integrating and partnering with existing pro- grams. Such programs have proven to be successful not only in broaden- ing the education of students, but in the recruitment and retention of high quality students. is is in addition to ensuring the students emerge as well-rounded and informed citizens. Multidisciplinary teamwork is deemed useful 12 . Real life problems and contexts are viewed as intrinsically motivating and useful for students. Engaging in such projects allows departments and colleges to market and promote themselves. e value of such programs is not in question. However, how to undertake these eﬀorts and institutionalize them is an issue for discussion. To successfully implement a program to attain the learning outcomes listed above, inter-collegiate and inter-departmental cooperation and collaboration is required. Faculty By engaging in HESE-type projects, the faculty role in the class- room is expanded from a provider of knowledge to a facilitator of critical synthesis and learning. As educational leaders at an institution of research 17 and higher education, such projects allow faculty to enhance the learning and instruction accomplished within the classroom on a real-life, practical level. Students are attracted to courses that allow for the application of learned material in unique and realistic settings. By deﬁnition, it pro- motes awareness of current societal issues as they relate to academic areas of interest and enriches and enlivens teaching. Such projects also provide authentic assessment opportunities and identify new areas for research and publication. In addition, many professional academic associations now include sessions on HESE-type eﬀorts and community engagement at national and regional conferences. Indeed, the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) is initiating a new division entitled ‘Com- munity Engagement and Engineering Education’. Special issues of pro- fessional journals such as the International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) now feature such eﬀorts as topics of inquiry. Involvement in HESE-type projects can augment and redirect one’s professional research interests, especially when a strong partnership is created with a commu- nity organization. Most faculty who participate in HESE activities come away re-energized and invigorated with renewed energy for their careers. Students Elbert Hubbard, a popular early 20th century homespun philoso- pher, had some words of wisdom still applicable in the 21st century: “A school should not be a preparation for life,” Hubbard observed. “It should be life.” A growing body of research shows that meaningful engagement with the community interwoven with high quality classroom instruction beneﬁts students in four diﬀerent areas. It greatly enhances students' ac- ademic skills, fosters a lifelong commitment to civic participation, sig- niﬁcantly sharpens their intercommunication skills, and, perhaps most importantly for our nation, prepares youth to enter and mesh with what almost surely is the most diversiﬁed work force in history 13 . ese beneﬁts may be well documented, but the practical concerns of students and potential implementation hurdles are numerous. In order to engage in pertinent, real life projects in service, students report concern over: How does this ‘ﬁt’ with their graduation requirements? Do they 18 19 obtain credit for the activity? How much time is involved? What travel support is available? Is there adequate faculty oversight and mentoring in order to make a real diﬀerence in the project? How best to work in multidisciplinary teams? How best to engage with a learning community and experience the associated beneﬁts of such organizations. What skill training will enable them to actually be able to implement their proposed solutions in the community itself? Partners Engagement in HESE-type ventures frequently builds lasting ties between universities and the communities with whom they partner. Such communities highly value the involvement of college students, not only for their enthusiasm, but because they are eager to explore the intersection of theory and practice and act as catalysts for improvements and change. Any relationship with partners must be equitable and mutually beneﬁcial to all parties. e partnerships might also be diverse in kind and estab- lished in diverse ways, e.g. partners should not be limited to institutions of higher education. It is essential to oﬀer the partners (hosts) something of value, which may include a sustainable beneﬁt to them, as well as be mindful of working to empower partners through the projects carried out (even if this only includes greater, reciprocal understanding), since some- times local hosts, perhaps issuing out of cultural norms, agree to partner in ways that further burden them, resource-wise, and are more harmful to them than helpful. ere is a danger in such partnerships in terms of building expectations and not following through on projects. ere are signiﬁcant opportunities for student-led projects to actually impede proj- ects in communities. Oversight and communication are essential. Diversity e impact of HESE-type opportunities cannot be underestimated on the retention of women and minorities. Richardson et al 14 emphasized that projects can serve as a powerful tool for attracting students to and retaining them in engineering programs by demonstrating the diversity of skills needed to practice engineering. Two student organizations that engage in such learning activities incorporating design, research and out- reach have seen remarkable outcomes. Engineers Without Borders (EWB) and Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW) are two organiza- tions that have similar missions. Both were developed to provide students with opportunities to engage in design and research of problems found in developing communities. ey directly engage students in hands-on activities – including travel to implement their design and research. ese groups both have disproportionately high numbers of women and mi- nority participants who self-select into the groups. Nationally, in the U.S., 20% of undergraduate engineering students are female. In the workforce, it is about 11% who are women 15 . Many Engineers Without Borders chapters report that approximately 50% of project participants are women and/or minorities. ese results are duplicated with ESW. Given the preceding discussion detailing the beneﬁts of HESE ef- forts at Penn State, the remaining chapters in this text will elaborate upon the description and background of various types of programs that exist for students which not only enhance their learning and better prepare them for their careers, but also concurrently make a real diﬀerence in the lives of others. Acknowledgements Eﬀorts to develop a formal engineering service learning program at Penn State have been ongoing since 1997. ese persistent eﬀorts recently bore fruit as Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) was approved as a formal program in the College of Engineering in 2011. e International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) was borne as part of this eﬀort in 2006. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Khanjan Mehta. Since joining the eﬀort in 2004, he has el- evated the entire program through his tireless quest to integrate social en- trepreneurship into the program as an integral component. In addition, many students and colleagues from Penn State, too numerous to mention here, were instrumental in developing the program over the years and their contributions have been greatly appreciated. 20 21 REFERENCES 1 World Bank Development Indicators, 2008 2 Prahalad, C.K., Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty rough Proﬁts. 2004. Pearson Prentice Hall 3 Hart, Stuart L., Capitalism at the Crossroads: e Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World's Most Diﬃcult Problems. 2005. Pearson Prentice Hall. 4 National Academy of Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020. 2005. National Academies Press 5 A Scans Report For America 2000, e Secretary's Commission On Achieving Necessary Skills,U.S. Department Of Labor, June 1991 6 Edu-Trends, Trends in K-12 Education and their Predicted Impact on Worker Competencies in 2005-2010, September 30, 2001, Joshua Baron, Edward A. Friedman, Beth McGrath, Stevens Institute of Technology, Center for Improved Engineering and Science Education 7 http://www.boeing.com/educationrelations/attributes.html 8 http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/mission.html 9 Adapted from Otterbein College’s “Center for Community Engagement” and Pfeiﬀer University’s “Faculty Service-Learning Handbook and Resource Guide.” 10 Marginson, S., 1999, After globalization: emerging politics of education. Journal of Educational Policy, 14(1), 19–31. 11 Albrow, M., 1990, Introduction, in A. Albrow and E. King (eds.), Globalization, Knowledge and Society. Sage, London, pp. 3–13. 12 Karlsson, Jan, Anderberg, Elsie, Booth, Shirley; Odenrick, Per; Christmansson, Marita. Reaching beyond Disciplines through Collaboration: Academics' Learning in a National Multidisciplinary Research Programme. Journal of Workplace Learning, v20 n2 p98-113 2008 13 Adapted from Truman College’s Service-Learning Website. 14 Richardson, J., Corleto, C., Froyd, J., Imbrie, P. K., Parker, J., Roedel, R., “Fresh- man design projects in the Foundation Coalition,” Proceedings of the 1998 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, November 4 - 7, 1998, Tempe, AZ, USA, 50-59, 1998. 15 Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/. 22 23 “eworkingknowledgeofprofessionalsisalmost universallyconsideredintrinsicallyinformal, henceunteachableexceptbyexperience.Ifwe expressworkingknowledgeformally……wecan manipulateit,reflectonit,andtransmitit moreeﬀectively.” — Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman, MIT Student working press at RISD Completed waste plastic composite tile Student designed wallet produced from waste by Cooperativa Nueva Mente in Buenos Aires Queen's University, the Centro Experimental de la Produccion in Argentina, the Rhode Island School of Design, Smith College, the University of Western Aus- tralia and ‘Waste for Life’ (a loosely joined network that develops poverty-reduc- ing solutions to speciﬁc ecological problems) collaborate to develop means of production for smaller cooperatives in communities in Argentina and Lesotho. An example of open source appropriate technology shown above, allows the user to produce a value-added composite tile out of waste plastic and ﬁber. 24 Introduction Demands by industry, and by society as a whole, for the knowledge, skills, and abilities of engineers continue to expand and deepen 1 . Educat- ing engineers who can best address those demands is our challenge. e National Academy of Engineering’s report ‘e Engineer of 2020’ forecasts that engineers of the future must not only be trained to be technically com- petent, they must also possess a certain business savvy, be culturally aware, able to manage complexity, and possess leadership and communication skills. However, it has become increasingly diﬃcult to meet these needs within traditional curricula given constraints such as: limited time, student credit loads, and course content requirements. It has been known for some time that for the student, “experience- based education creates a powerful learning environment, which results in new educational outcomes” (pg. 121). 2 As a form of experiential edu- cation, service-learning (SL) provides a potential vehicle for achieving a diverse range and greater depth of learning outcomes and presents op- portunities to address the goals cited above. Service-learning has been deﬁned by Bringle and Hatcher as: “a course-based, credit-bearing, edu- cational experience in which students (a) participate in an organized serv- ice activity that meets identiﬁed community needs and (b) reﬂect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility.” 3 Service-learning has been documented as a ped- agogy since the 1960s, with roots dating to the early 1900s 4 . However, the implementation of SL within engineering and with proper emphasis Angela R. Bielefeldt, PhD, PE University of Colorado Boulder Joshua M. Pearce, PhD Michigan Technological University CHAPTER 2 ServiceLearninginEngineering 25 on the various dimensions has only been documented since the 1990s. Signiﬁcant learning outcomes may result outside of courses in extracur- ricular activities such as Engineers Without Borders (EWB) and Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW). erefore, Learning rough Service (LTS) has been used as an umbrella term to encompass both SL and ex- tracurricular activities that yield educational outcomes 5,6 . is chapter will ﬁrst more carefully deﬁne SL and related activities and outline the scope of such activities. Next, the underlying learning concepts which provide the theoretical foundations for service-learning are summarized. ird, examples of the applications within engineering are provided. Fourth, some of the documented learning outcomes and beneﬁts of such activities within engineering are described. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the need for sustainable and appro- priate technology which provides both an urgent impetus for LTS and a readily available opportunity to integrate SL in any engineering classroom. Deﬁnition and Scope of Service Learning and Learning rough Service Although Bringle and Hatcher’s deﬁnition of service-learning is often cited, there is a range of learning environments that encompass el- ements beyond these deﬁned limits or lack some of the cited aspects. erefore, Learning rough Service (LTS) has been proposed as an um- brella term to include a broad array of activities. In some cases, the lines between learning environments may not be clear; for example, course- based (SL) versus extracurricular activities. Extracurricular activities can have explicit learning goals as well. For example, EWB was born with two primary goals (1) to help disadvantaged communities and (2) to ed- ucate students with the appropriate knowledge and attitudes to lead sus- tainable engineering projects. Similarly, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in their Humanitarian Technology Chal- lenge (HTC) and the American Society of Civil Engineer’s (ASCE) Body of Knowledge (BOK2) recognize the important role of extracurricular ac- tivities in engineering education 7 . e group eﬀort from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), EWB, and IEEE to create En- gineering for Change (E4C) also clearly supports such eﬀorts. us, ex- tracurricular learning that serves communities in need can be viewed as 26 an appropriate dimension within LTS. Many criteria within Bringle & Hatcher’s SL deﬁnition are not al- ways rigorously evident in course-based or extracurricular LTS. For ex- ample, if a course does not explicitly evaluate whether students have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility after the activity, is it not actually SL? Some debate can be made between intended outcomes (teaching) versus realized outcomes (learning). is is even more challenging given the authentic and variable nature of student learning in the community. erefore, rigorous distinction between learning environments is not the goal of this section, but rather to outline the range of learning activities that fall within the sphere of LTS. First, it is helpful to include all of the commonly used terms that fall within the LTS arena; see Figure 2.1 6,8 . Some of these activities have distinguishing elements, but uninformed usage by practitioners means that there are many examples of perhaps erroneous use of each term which tends to blur the lines between these educational practices. erefore, a spectrum of structures, student learning outcomes, student attitude out- comes, and community engagement lenses can be found in LTS practice. Mooney and Edwards identiﬁed six diﬀerent community based learning (CBL) options which were deﬁned based on six attributes: in community, service rendered, curricular credit, apply/acquire skills, structured reﬂec- tion, and social action 9 . However, to fall under the LTS umbrella at least two criteria must be satisﬁed: a community partner is served and students acquire skills, knowledge, and/or aﬀective outcomes. FIGURE 2.1 RANGE OF EDUCATIONAL METHODS THAT FALL WITHIN THE SPHERE OF LEARNING THROUGH SERVICE Four elements have been proposed that should be present in all SL activities, the four Rs: reciprocity, respect, relevance, and reﬂection 10 . e presence of each of these elements is also recommended in any LTS ac- tivity. Each of these elements is brieﬂy summarized below. From the reciprocity standpoint, both the students and the com- munity should beneﬁt from the activity. e community should have ar- ticulated its needs and goals for itself and then see if it can ﬁnd an academic partner. A balanced partnership is a key component of a suc- cessful SL activity. e perspective of a partnership will help ensure that both sides respect one another. Any outsiders (i.e. students) entering a community should respect its traditions, culture, etc. And they should respect that each community possesses knowledge and skills that are of meaning and value. e lack of a mutually respectful relationship will be detrimental to both the community beneﬁts that are realized and the stu- dents’ cognitive and aﬀective learning outcomes. Relevance dictates that the service must be relevant to the learning objectives of the course. e service activity must apply, reinforce, and/or extend the key learning objectives of the course. If students are unable to clearly see this relevance, they may be openly skeptical or even hostile regarding the SL requirement. Engineering courses generally have well deﬁned technical knowledge outcomes that are clear to students, but instructors sometimes are less rigorous in specifying the desired pro- fessional skills and attitude outcomes. Articulation of the full range of learning goals for each class improved signiﬁcantly in many programs due to the outcomes-based engineering accreditation criteria of ABET starting in 2000 11 . Finally, the reﬂection element is requisite to SL in order to activate students’ metacognition regarding the learning that has occurred. is is particularly necessary in service-placement type of activities where the learning objectives are not clearly manifest in the activity. However, within the typical project-based service learning (PBSL) applications in engineering, the learning outcomes are generally obvious in the activities being executed (i.e. design, team work, communication). erefore, some engineering projects for community partners have not included required reﬂection activities, but have still generally been termed SL. Clearly, prop- 27 erly structured reﬂection can and should be executed to enhance student learning in these PBSL contexts. More recently, a number of stages have been proposed by Root and Jesse 12 and endorsed by Learn and Serve America 13 as the standard process for ensuring the quality of a SL experience. e stages (abbreviated as IPARDC) are: (1) Investigation, (2) Planning and Preparation, (3) Action (engaging in the service experience), (4) Reﬂection, and (5) Demonstra- tion / Celebration. Sustainability of the beneﬁcial community impacts and the SL program itself should also be considered 114 . Although pro- posed for a K-12 context, the steps in this cycle also seem consistent with a college-level SL experience. e typical initiation point of a SL activity is that an instructor has identiﬁed a learning goal that can be met via community service, and then seeks out an appropriate community partner. However, the Bringle & Hatcher SL deﬁnition implies that secondary beneﬁts are derived from SL beyond the speciﬁc learning outcome desired, such that students will be endowed with an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and a broader perspective on their discipline. e extent to which all SL courses expect and evaluate students’ civic responsibility and disciplinary perspectives to be enhanced is unclear, and frequently does not appear to be rigorously evaluated. is is perhaps driven by engineering educators’ focus on as- sessment of accreditation-required outcomes and speciﬁc content-based technical elements. More information on the documented student out- comes from LTS will be discussed later in this chapter. It is also important to note the range of potential “community” part- ners in the SL eﬀort. Community partners in engineering are typically non- governmental organizations (NGOs), non-political governmental institutions, municipalities or towns, schools, hospitals or health clinics (typically within developing countries), individuals with disabilities, and for-proﬁt micro-enterprises in developing countries. Student work for cor- porations and industrial partners is excluded from the deﬁnition of SL 4 . Although it should be noted that work with industry partners on projects that are deﬁned by the needs of the community (e.g. energy eﬃciency and emission reductions in non-energy industries) have been used as SL projects successfully 13 . 28 29 eoretical Foundations for LTS A number of learning theories have elements that seem to explain why LTS will be a powerful and particularly eﬀective pedagogy. is section will highlight a few of the learning theories that are most relevant to the LTS experience. Understanding of these theories helps highlights attributes of an LTS experience that should optimize student learning. Readers are referred to a number of good articles that have discussed relevant educa- tional theories that support the basis of SL in more depth 14,15,16 . John Dewey’s theories (circa 1933, 1938) are often listed as a foun- dation for understanding the attributes of SL that make it a powerful teach- ing method 17,18 . Dewey’s theories point to the power of experiential learning, of which SL is one form. LTS forms the situation where the stu- dent interacts with the community environment in a meaningful way from which the student learns and grows. LTS situates the learner in the com- munity in a unique way which helps catalyze the learning process. Dewey postulates ﬁve phases of reﬂective thought 17 , which can describe why crit- ical reﬂection by the students is an important and indispensable part of the learning cycle. Project based learning through the engineering design process maps well to these learning phases, which can be summarized as: 1. A disturbance where an individual determines that routine approaches are insuﬃcient to solve a problem. 2. Problem deﬁnition which requires exploration. 3. Analyzing potential methods and resources needed to solve the problem, developing hypotheses. 4. Reasoning which involves thinking through courses of action and hypotheses, to estimate likelihood of success 5. Action to solve the problem. e added beneﬁt of SL may be seen through Dewey’s four criteria for “projects to be truly educative” 17 : 1. a service learning project often generates genuine interest among the students because it addresses a real problem; 2. SL projects are worthwhile because they have intent to create a real positive beneﬁt for speciﬁc individuals; 3. SL projects often present problems that demand students’ creativity and self-directed learning; and 4. most PBSL experiences generally span enough time (typically at least an entire semester) to allow genuine learning to occur. SL projects in engineering meet the continuity requirement if stu- dents realize that they can build on their previous knowledge to solve the SL problems and also feel that they may reasonably be able to build on these learning experiences in the future 14,15 . Jean Piaget’s educational theories are relevant to LTS through the as- sertion that learning and cognitive development occur when conﬂict or an uncomfortable situation triggers the active processes of assimilation, ac- commodation, and equilibrium 19 . erefore, LTS may provide an unfa- miliar experience, leading to discomfort or even personal mental conﬂict. is part of the learning process points to the importance of placing stu- dents in situations outside of their normal experience, whether it is working at a homeless shelter or serving an impoverished rural community in a for- eign country via EWB. However, Piaget’s theory postulates that learning and growth will not occur from the experience unless the student processes and works through these feelings and conﬂicts. is reinforces the impor- tance of reﬂection that was also evident in Dewey’s learning theories 16,20 . David Kolb’s learning cycle (circa 1984) extends Dewey’s concept of the importance of experiential learning 21 . Concrete experiences (stage 1) are followed by reﬂective observation (stage 2), which leads to assimi- lation into abstract conceptualization (stage 3), and then active testing and experimentation (stage 4). is testing and experimentation phase provides new experiences, which feeds into additional learning cycles. e cyclic engineering design process is somewhat reﬂective of this experiential learning cycle. is is particularly true in an authentic LTS project. Ex- periences with the partner community to understand their challenges are the spark, while the data gathering and structured reﬂection are also key ingredients in the learning cycle. Stage 3 requires the students to apply basic science and engineering fundamentals to address the problem. e active testing is the application of the design and the determination if changes are needed 15,16 . 30 Paolo Freire has also been cited as posing theories about education that are particularly relevant to service learning 15,22,23 . His writings seem at ﬁrst most relevant in describing the symbiotic partnership between our students and the community, where both entities can beneﬁt and learn in a respectful environment. is transforms the framework of the learn- ing from a “service” paradigm that seems to imply a power structure of the “server” (student, teacher) and the “served” (the community), to a more balanced relationship. In a similar fashion, the students and in- structors involved in LTS tend to rebalance the traditional learning per- spective of one-way transmission of knowledge to a student-driven learning cycle. Instructors often ﬁnd LTS particularly appealing and re- warding as they ﬁnd themselves learning and growing through the process of facilitating these experiences and partnerships with communities. However, many engineering educators are likely to ﬁnd Freire’s focus on the ideological purpose of education less relevant to their concept of the role of engineering education, and may therefore discount his theories on learning. Additional educational theories have been described as relevant to SL 24,25 . In all cases, these theories highlight diﬀerent aspects of LTS that create a powerful environment for student learning. Viewing LTS through these diﬀerent lenses of educational theory can highlight elements of the learning structure which faculty should build into the LTS experi- ence in order to produce optimal learning. Explicit discussion of SL ped- agogy with engineering students may be help alleviate some negative pushback from students as they initially enter this generally unfamiliar mode of learning and are perhaps uncomfortable with some aspects, in particular the requirement for critical reﬂection. Applications of LTS within Engineering ere are a number of examples of the application of LTS within engineering. Because LTS often begins at a grass-roots level with a single professor adding SL into a single course, an exhaustive list of LTS eﬀorts in engineering is not possible. However, there are three common types of engineering classes where SL has been implemented: design (any level from ﬁrst year to capstone design), experimental lab courses, and analy- 31 sis-based engineering science (i.e. thermodynamics, ﬂuid mechanics). In- tegration into design courses appears the most common. ere are also organizations that facilitate LTS which are very popular with students (i.e. Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW)). ere are many examples of SL in ﬁrst year introduction and/or projects courses, such as at the University of South Alabama 26 , University of San Diego 26 , Virginia Commonwealth University 27 , and the University of Colorado 28 . In many of these courses, SL projects are among many choices available to students or selected as the topic for a particular section of the course. Often these courses are very large, which poses coordination challenges. e ﬁrst-year course at the University of Toronto has over 1000 students in the fall semester, and includes required SL projects 29 . ere are also many examples of SL projects in capstone design courses 30 . Civil and environmental engineering programs seem particu- larly well-suited to community based SL projects due to the traditional nature of projects in these disciplines, with well-documented examples at the University of Colorado Boulder, South Dakota State University, the University of Vermont, and Michigan Technological University 30,31 . Me- chanical and biomedical engineering programs often include assistive technology devices in capstone design courses. Examples include Duke University 30 and the University of Massachusetts Amherst 32 . Laboratory courses can provide an opportunity to provide data to communities that they ﬁnd useful for a variety of purposes. Examples of laboratory courses that include SL are: a transportation course in civil en- gineering at University of Hartford 33 , a surveying course at Union Col- lege 34 , a materials lab at University of Dayton 35 , and an environmental engineering lab at the University of Massachusetts Lowell 36 . Examples of service integration into core engineering courses have been less commonly published. ere are a number of examples from the Service Learning Integrated throughout the College of Engineering (SLICE) program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, including statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, ﬂuid mechanics, heat transfer, and materials courses across ﬁve diﬀerent engineering majors 36,37 . e SLICE program is an example of how a coordinated eﬀort can ease the burden on faculty and lead to widespread incorporation of SL. eir success in- 32 33 dicates that SL may be appropriate for any course. Another example is a heat transfer course at Grand Valley State University 38 . However, studies have found that many engineering faculty do not believe that SL is ap- propriate to core engineering science courses. A survey at MIT found that while 94% of the mechanical engineering faculty mentioned e Product Engineering Process as a course suitable for SL; for ermal- Fluid Engineering and Mechanics and Materials only 25% and 15% of faculty noted these courses, respectively, as suitable for SL 39 . Beyond speciﬁc, individual courses, there are broader curricular ef- forts (many originally sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF)), programs, certiﬁcates, and extracurricular organizations that em- brace LTS. A few of these programs are listed below. e list is not in- tended to be exhaustive, but merely to provide some concrete examples. Also note that some programs oﬀer a mixture of courses and extracurric- ular activities, so the speciﬁc examples are only loosely arrayed under each speciﬁc category. Example Curricular Eﬀorts and Initiatives: 1. Engineers in Technical, Humanitarian Opportunities of Service- Learning (ETHOS) at the University of Dayton (http://www.udayton.edu/engineering/ethos/) 2. Service-Learning Integrated throughout the College of Engineering (SLICE) at the University of Massachusetts - Lowell (http://www.slice.uml.edu/) 3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Edgerton Center, Public Service Center and D-Lab: Introduction to Development (http://web.mit.edu/Edgerton/www/ServiceLearning.html (http://web.mit.edu/servicelearning/index.shtml) and (http://web.mit.edu/d-lab/) 4. Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Aﬀordability at Stanford University (http://soe.stanford.edu/publicservice/courses0607.php) 5. Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) at Penn State University (www.hese.psu.edu) 6. Global Resolve at Arizona State University (http://globalresolve.asu.edu/) 34 7. University of Vermont, Civil and Environmental Engineering, http://www.uvm.edu/~sysedcee/?Page=service/default.php&SM=s ervice/_servicemenu.html Example Certiﬁcates and Programs: 1. Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) started in 1995; members at 20 universities in the U.S. and abroad, and even high school eﬀorts (http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/) 2. Community Service Engineering Certiﬁcate Program (Michigan Technological) (http://www.d80.mtu.edu/Certiﬁcate.html) 3. (Humanitarian) Engineering and Community Engagement Certiﬁcate Program (Penn State) (www.hese.psu.edu) 4. Master’s Degree in Engineering for Developing Communities and Peace Corps (Michigan Technological) (http://www.cee.mtu.edu/peacecorps/index.html) 5. Engineering for Developing Communities (University of Col- orado) (http://www.edc-cu.org/index.htm); graduate certiﬁcate 6. Ohio State University, Engineers in Community Service (ECOS) (http://ecos.osu.edu/) Example Extracurricular Student Organizations: 1. Engineers Without Borders (EWB) (http://www.ewb-international.org/) 2. Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW) (http://www.esustainableworld.org/) 3. Engineering World Health (EWH) at Duke University (http://www.ewh.org/about/index.php); becoming an NGO It is important to note that the student activities associated with ex- tracurricular student organizations have often crossed into course-based settings. At Rice University, the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department created three courses to complement their EWB activities: project management, sustainable technologies, and a senior-level special problems design course 40 . At the University of Wisconsin – Madison the EWB activities reportedly led to the creation of a course on sustainabil- ity 41 . At some universities, EWB projects have formed the basis for senior design projects within the capstone design course (i.e. University of Col- orado Boulder, Lafayette College, University of Arizona) 30 . Student Learning Outcomes from LTS Although there should be a balance between community and stu- dents in the learning partnership, the outcomes for students have been much more widely documented than outcomes for the partner commu- nities. erefore, this section focuses on the documented cognitive and aﬀective (interest, attitudes, and values) outcomes from student LTS par- ticipants. In addition, the potential diversity impacts, particularly in re- gards to recruiting and retention, will be explored. ere is a substantial and yet rapidly expanding body of literature showing that service learning outcomes have been positive for students, faculty, educational institutions, and community part- ners 13,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49 . Service learning has proved so overwhelmingly suc- cessful that the Kellogg Commission concluded that service learning “should be viewed as among the most powerful of teaching procedures, if the teaching goal is lasting learning that can be used to shape student’s lives around the world.” 50 . Research into service learning pedagogy has been maturing quickly. It is now well established that service learning has a positive impact on students’ academic learning, moral development, im- proves students’ ability to apply what they have learned in the “real world”, and improves academic outcomes as demonstrated complexity of understanding, problem analysis, critical thinking, and cognitive devel- opment 51,52,53,54,55 . e largest benefactors of an experiential education or service learning approach are thus students, who are more motivated, work harder (and longer), learn more, and experience lasting beneﬁts from their experience 56,57,58,59,60,61 . Bielefeldt et al. 30, 62 summarized a wide range of student learning outcomes that have been achieved in engineering using LTS methods. is included all of the ABET a-k outcomes 63 , many of the additional ASCE Body of Knowledge 2nd edition outcomes 7 , and additional attrib- utes. Jaeger and LaRochelle mapped EWB activities with all of the ABET a-k outcomes 64 . Faculty who have incorporated SL into courses have di- 35 rect evidence of student learning via students’ performance on traditional graded assessments, such as homework, lab reports, and exams. ere also is interest in evaluating whether SL provides additional learning ben- eﬁts over other teaching methods. is information is less widely available because it would require a controlled study where some students do not participate in SL activities. e data on the beneﬁts of LTS toward stu- dent learning includes primarily indirect evidence that is self-reported by students. ere are also anecdotal reports from many engineering pro- fessors. ere has been less data presented from direct methods used to assess student performance such as graded exams, projects scored using detailed rubrics, standardized tests, or concept inventories. For example, some researchers are exploring whether PBSL provides diﬀerential learn- ing outcomes compared to PBL 65 . e sections below highlight some ex- amples of outcomes assessment information; readers are referred to Bielefeldt et al. 66 for additional examples. Knowledge and Skills Learning Outcomes First, SL can provide an eﬀective method to teach academic subject matter in core engineering areas such as thermodynamics, ﬂuid mechan- ics, heat transfer, circuits, and dynamics. For the SLICE program at Uni- versity of Massachusetts–Lowell, Duﬀy reported positive results of indirect measures of subject matter comprehension measured by increased grades 37 . Students self-reported being more motivated to learn course sub- ject matter, which is a key ingredient in learning. Students also stated that they voluntarily spent more time on SL tasks. Faculty agreed with the statement that students learn course subject matter better with SL. Holtzclaw reported that EWB students had self-reported increases in con- ﬁdence levels in basic civil/environmental engineering concepts and prin- ciples; however, statistical evaluation of the data was not presented 67 . e widespread implementation of service learning in design courses, has shown documented success in teaching students engineering design 30 . Ariely 68 described the outcomes from a capstone design course in mechan- ical engineering where there were a combination of service and non-service projects. Student self-evaluations were indicative that the real clients for the SL projects helped students better understand the design process al- 36 though the statistical diﬀerence was only p=0.09. Students who worked on the SL projects did have a signiﬁcantly higher self-reported appreciation for the ability to help communities as engineers (p < 0.02). In addition, it was found that under-represented minorities (URM) students expressed signiﬁcantly more interest in community service and in using engineering to solve social problems 68 . e SL experience also diﬀerentially impacted URM students’ belief in engineers’ social responsibility 68 . Other common outcomes reported from SL seem to largely result from the team environment and project communication requirements. Blomstrom and Tam 69 looked for signiﬁcant diﬀerences in self-reported gains in content, organization, delivery, team skills, and personal skills in a ﬁrst-year speech communication course taken by engineering majors. For the 5-factors combined, diﬀerences between SL and non-SL were not statistically signiﬁcant. e service learning group, however, might have a stronger treatment eﬀect based on the changes of the means. e changes in the means were higher in the service-learning subset for each of the ﬁve factors. Likewise, the partial eta-squared calculations for each of the ﬁve factors were also higher in the service-learning group, indicating that the course had stronger eﬀect on the overall outcome than the non- service learning students. SLICE also found self-reported student gains in teamwork and communication skills as a result of SL 37 . Students in the Purdue EPICS program reported that the most valuable things that they learned from the SL experience were teamwork and communication 70 . Similarly, a survey of EWB members also found self-reported gains in the appreciation of the importance of teamwork 64 . Leadership was posited as a learning outcome from LTS by Ejiwale and Posey 71 but they present no concrete data to support this claim. A speciﬁc course “Leadership and Teamwork from Within” for Honors Stu- dents at the University of Cincinnati included SL as one of many com- ponents (seminars, PBL, a leadership camp). e leadership-related learning objectives were reportedly achieved 72 . Meanwhile, “increased student understanding of and commitment to leadership” was reported as one among many outcomes from an integrated ﬁrst-year experience that included SL 73 . Leadership was also taught in a ﬁrst-year engineering projects course via a SL project at the University of California Berkeley 74 . 37 Students self-reported improvement in their engineering skills at the end of the course, including leadership and management skills. In these var- ious examples it was diﬃcult to attribute the leadership gains uniquely to the SL experience as distinct from PBL or other teaching methods. In a large study of approximately 800 students participating in mul- tidisciplinary projects, Huyck et al. 75 found that service learning projects compared to non-SL projects did not appear to diﬀerentially increase the students’ self-perceptions of their own competence in communication, teamwork, ethical awareness, or project management. In addition, the re- searchers found no diﬀerence between the students who completed the three structured reﬂective writing exercises and those students who did not. is provides further support for the diﬃculty in identifying poten- tial diﬀerential beneﬁts of PBSL over other PBL experiences. Although, obviously the PBSL projects had the potential to–and often did–beneﬁt the community partners, the PBL projects had no such capacity. us, the true power of LTS may be its ability to achieve a wide array of learning outcomes in an eﬃcient manner that is equally as eﬀec- tive as other methods that are more targeted. For example, a PBSL expe- rience in a heat transfer course may teach heat transfer principles equally as well as traditional textbook problems. But in addition, the PBSL ex- perience beneﬁts students’ understanding of the impacts of engineering on society, contemporary issues, modern engineering tools, communica- tion, and teamwork skills. Beyond these skills, the service learning expe- rience may impact students’ attitudes about community service, the professional responsibilities of engineers, and their motivation to remain in engineering. Finally, SL courses have been shown to make a positive material diﬀerence in the real world. ese ideas of motivation to persist in engineering and the impact of SL to beneﬁt global society are elabo- rated on in the next section. Diversity Recruiting and Retention ere has been speculation in the literature that engineering which focuses on beneﬁts to communities and individuals might be more attractive to groups traditionally under-represented in engineering, speciﬁcally female and URM students. Support for this notion has been provided by statistics 38 which indicate that women are over-represented by a signiﬁcant percentage in optional LTS activities such as EPICS and EWB 70,76,77 . In a study of recruiting and retention associated with the SLICE program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML), it was re- ported that the number of entering students increased 50% in the four years SLICE was in existence 37 . Twenty-three percent of the incoming students reported that SL was one of their reasons for their choosing UML. Although female student enrollment in engineering did not in- crease, the number of Hispanic students enrolled increased 50%. UML students also indicated that SL increased the likelihood they would remain in engineering. Females and URM students at UML indicated a signiﬁ- cantly more positive impact of SL on retention in engineering. Monroe and Lima 78 found that female retention increased signiﬁcantly at Louisiana State University after a ﬁrst year course focused on service learn- ing was added into the curriculum; an increase to 86% retention into the second year compared to 50% prior to SL. e Beneﬁts of Service Learning to Communities e Need For Just Sustainable Development Although the sections above have shown the clear beneﬁts from an educational perspective for SL, this does not mean that the assistance en- gineering students can provide to both local communites and the global community should be ignored. Service learning provides an ideal vehicle for students to apply their academic skills toward this end through en- gagement and collaboration with marginalized communities. e need for development is as great as it has ever been, but future development in such marginalized communities cannot simply follow past models of economic activity, which tended to waste resources and produce prodigious pollution 79,80,81,82,83 . For the future, the entire world population needs ways to achieve economic, social, and environmental objectives simultaneously. ere is thus a need for just sustainability, which is “the egalitarian conception of sustainable development”(pg. 32) 84 . It generates an improved deﬁnition for sustainable development so that it is “the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into 39 the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems” (pg.5) 85 . is new form of sustainable devel- opment prioritizes justice and equity, while maintaining the importance of the environment and the global life support system. In order to meet this goal, international co-operation to overcome technical problems is necessary to eliminate poverty and help all the world’s people develop as we move towards a just global society. e present global picture is sobering and demonstrates how far we are from a just, sustainable world: Around 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day and 2.8 billion people live on less than $2 a day 86 . • Ingestion of unsafe water, inadequate availability of water for hygiene, and lack of access to sanitation contribute to about 1.5 million child deaths and around 88% of deaths from diarrhea every year 87,88 . • Overall 10.8 million children under the age of ﬁve die each year from preventable causes – equivalent to about 30,000/day 89 . e well known environmental ethicist, Holmes Rolston III, puts the current state of aﬀairs in context 90 : As a result of human failings, nature is more at peril than at any time in the last two-and-a-half billion years. e sun will rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday and the day before, but nature may no longer be there. Unless in the next millennium, indeed in the next century, we regulate and control the escalating human devastation of our planet, we may face the end of nature as it has hitherto been known. Several billion years worth of creative toil, several million species of teeming life, have now been handed over to the care of the late-coming species in which mind has ﬂowered and morals have emerged. Science has revealed to us this glorious natural history and religion invites us to be stewards of it. at could be a glorious future story. But the sole moral and allegedly wise species has so far been able to do little more than use this sci- ence to convert whatever we can into resources for our own self- interested and escalating consumption, and we have done even that with great inequity between persons. 40 41 is enormous challenge to our generation is growing – the world’s population will probably increase to over 9 billion people by 2050 91 . How do we engineer our future development so that all people, both in devel- oped and developing communities, have basic human needs met and a clean, healthy, and safe world in which to grow and prosper? is is the challenge of creating a just sustainable world for all. e global community has recognized that we must face the chal- lenge of sustainable development immediately and do so with education. e United Nations has labeled this the “Decade of Education for Sus- tainable Development” (2005-2014). Teaching sustainability has be- come the most important goal in education in this century. Yet science and engineering education has not even begun to meet the global needs. For example, Al-Khafaji and Morse in their recent international survey of engineering students, found widespread and startling knowledge gaps about many core aspects of sustainable development 92 . Despite this lack of universal sustainable engineering knowledge, there is also a growing list of examples of engineering service learning to teach sustainable design principles, most notably discussed at the Amer- ican Society for Engineering Education Conferences and the Annual Con- ferences on Frontiers in Education. Also, although global conditions continue to reﬂect a marked underinvestment in sustainable development, a growing body of university student work has been shown to solve envi- ronmental and developmental problems on a small scale using service learning projects 93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100 . Similarly, although a body of academic work devoted to sustainable development has begun to amass, much of the research conducted at uni- versities is not speciﬁcally designed to help resolve the developing world’s problems. e vast majority of resources, both mental and economic, are concentrated on scientiﬁc and technological research focused on quanti- fying sustainability indicators and the frontiers of science and social the- ories – pushing the envelope on large and complex problems. However, the less grand questions of how to actually implement sustainable practices across a range of contexts, particularly for small-scale appropriate tech- nologies, or applications, in developing nations is often apportioned sig- niﬁcantly less resources for inquiry 101 . Service Learning and Appropriate Technology Appropriate technology is technology that is most suitable to the speciﬁc location where it is employed. It can be deﬁned as any object, process, idea, or practice that enhances human fulﬁllment through satis- faction of human needs 102 . In the context of the developing world, ap- propriate technologies must be able to be economically constructed using locally available materials, energy resources, and tools or processes main- tained and operationally controlled by the local population. Appropriate technologies must meet environmental, cultural, economic, and educa- tional resource constraints of the localized community. For example, Weiss, George, and Walker describe the process of re- design for a manual shredding machine used to harvest breadfruit in the Republic of Haiti 103 . eir methodology examined each function of the shredder assembly to determine if parts could be eliminated or combined and if there were simpler ways to meet the performance criteria without sacriﬁcing quality. is work resulted in a machine that was easier to build in a developing country, used materials that were more commonly avail- able, had a reduced number of parts, was more robust, was easier to clean and keep sanitary, and cost less to make! It should be noted here that in some cases the most appropriate so- lution to a community's challenges may involve some components outside of the scope of local production 104 . For example, Ros, et al. describe the establishment of a computer laboratory to provide an education resource to encourage learning and creativity for a children’s center in Guatemala 105 . ey utilized the appropriate technology of the open source Linux operating system, a free and technically superior alternative to com- mercial software. Design and implementation of the project covered not only technical areas but also social aspects of computer technology. Al- though some research has been done on a number of appropriate tech- nologies, the diﬀusion of these innovations has greatly lagged the demand in the developing world. Unfortunately for many institutions, the expense of sending large cohorts of students on international service learning trips is prohibitive. Yet, students remain enthusiastic and well equipped to assist in sustainable development. One opportunity to conduct engineering service learning 42 that attempts to overcome this challenge has been developed enabling stu- dents to provide solutions to sustainable development problems. is is accomplished using on online tool titled Appropedia.org. Appropedia is the site for collaborative solutions in sustainability, poverty reduction, and international development through the use of sound principles and ap- propriate technology and the sharing of wisdom and project information. It is a wiki, a type of website which allows anyone to add, remove, or edit content. is method of virtual service learning has been demonstrated in the past to beneﬁt from some of the positive outcomes of service learn- ing, while avoiding the challenges of ﬁnding appropriate community part- ners for every speciﬁc learning goal 106 . IJSLE and Opportunities for Students e creation of the International Journal for Service Learning in En- gineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) in 2006 provided opportunities for students to contribute directly to sus- tainable development and have their work published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated internationally. A quarter of a century has now passed since Logan suggested science could play a major role in sustainable development by contributing to the interdisciplinary ﬁeld of appropriate technology 107 . Yet, the majority of appropriate technology research has been accomplished by time-consuming trial and error methods in the ﬁeld by individuals without technical backgrounds. e ability of under- graduate students to solve such real-world problems is generally neg- lected 108 . Yet university students are both capable and enthusiastic real-world problem solvers if they are freed to undertake structured self- directed assignments 109 . Recent examples include: appropriate wheel- chairs 110 , wind powered LED lighting 111 , and corrugated ﬁberboard cartons for produce 112 . e operations of many of these appropriate tech- nologies are governed by physical laws taught in introductory physics and engineering classes. In addition to a solid foundation in the scientiﬁc method and engineering principles, students have access to the scientiﬁc literature in the university libraries, which is often not available to devel- opmental agents in the ﬁeld. e students also have access to some rela- tively sophisticated scientiﬁc equipment (e.g. computer-integrated 43 44 thermocouples), fully equipped machine shops, which can be used for both prototype and controlled studies of appropriate technologies. Finally, most engineering students have access to very sophisticated design and simulation software tools (e.g. ANSYS for FEA; FLUENT for CFD; Solid Works and Solid Edge for 3D CAD; TRNSYS for transient systems sim- ulation, Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) technology for engineer- ing materials selection, etc.). However, it should be noted that in order for local populations to have the best access to the designs, open source engineering software should be used and further developed 113 . By studying appropriate technologies students can perform the basic research necessary to optimize such devices, while gaining a better understanding of physical principles and engineering practice. IJSLE assists in the growth of this burgeoning ﬁeld by providing a platform for members of the academic community to help harness the knowledge and skills of university students, faculty, researchers, and prac- titioners to enhance global sustainable development. IJSLE includes ex- amples of work undertaken by service learning organizations, curriculum, and programs. A Way Forward Appropriate technologies have a central role in the alleviation of poverty in the developing world. However, research and development of these technologies are generally apportioned relatively modest sup- port by the world’s institutions in part because the operation of many of these appropriate technologies is dependent on relatively well-under- stood science and engineering concepts accessible even to undergraduate university students. e International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Human- itarian Enginnering and Social Entrepreneurship provides an outlet for uni- versity students that undertake project-based service learning assignments, and their mentors, to publish their work. Professors at all the world’s insti- tutions can capitalize on this opportunity to assist students to learn engi- neering more eﬀectively by oﬀering them a chance to make concrete contributions to the optimization of appropriate technologies for just sus- tainable development. 45 e next few chapters focus on speciﬁc types of service learning ap- proaches which address both the educational goals for students, the schol- arship activities of faculty, the implementation of design solutions by practitioners, and the enhancement of the lives of those living in margin- alized communities. ese approaches include: humanitarian engineer- ing, social entrepreneurship, and frugal innovation. REFERENCES 1 National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 2004. e Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, 118 pp., National Academies Press, 2004. 2 J.W. Peeples, “Why I want to be an Engineer”36th ASEE-IEEE- Frontiers in Education Conference, M1E1 (2006). 3 Bringle, R. and J. Hatcher. 1995. A service learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112-122. 4 Barrington, L. and J. Duﬀy. 2010. Maximizing Beneﬁts of Service-Learning in Engineering. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2010-2149. 20 pp. 5 McPherson, K. 1991. Learning rough Service. e Learning Revolution: Education Innovations for Global Citizens, In Context #27, pg. 50. 6 Swan, C., J. Duﬀy, O. Pierrakos, K. Paterson, A. Bielefeldt. 2011. e EFELTS Project – Engineering Faculty Engagement in Learning rough Service.” American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference and Exposition. Paper AC 2011-1324. June 26-29, Vancouver, BC Canada. 7 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2008. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, 2nd edition, 191 pp., ASCE, 2008. www.asce.org. 8 Sigmon, R. L. 1994. Serving to Learn, Learning to Serve: Linking Service with Learning, Council of Independent Colleges, Washington D.C. 9 Mooney, L.A. and B. Edwards. 2001. Experiential Learning in Sociology: Service Learning and Other Community-Based Learning Initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29 (2), 181-194. 10 Butin, D.W. 2003. Of What Use Is It? Multiple Conceptualizations of Service Learning Within Education. Teachers College Record. 105 (9), 1674-1692. 11 ABET (2010). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Eﬀective for Evaluations During the 2011-2012 Accreditation Cycle, 26 pp., ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. www.abet.org 12 Billig, S., Root, S., Jesse, D. e Impact of Participation in Service Learning on High School Students’ Civic Engagement. Circle Working Paper, 33. RMC Research. http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP33Billig.pdf 46 13 Branker, K. Pearce, J., McCorbett, J., and J. Webster, “Hybird Virtual–and Field Worked–Based Service Learning with Green Information Technology and Systems Projects.” International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering 5(2), pp. 44-59 (2010) http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/ijsle/article/view/3166 14 Giles, D.E., J. Eyler. 1994. e eoretical Roots of Service-Learning in John Dewey: Toward a eory of Service-Learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 1 (1): 77-85. 15 Cone, D., & Harris, S. 1996. Service learning practice: Developing a theoretical framework. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Fall, 31-43. http://www.servicelearning.org/library/resource/1972 16 McCormick, M., C. Swan, D. Matson. 2008. Reading between the Lines: Evaluating Self-Assessments of Skills Acquired During and International Service- Learning Project. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2008-1937. 17 Dewey, J. 1933. How We ink. A restatement of the relation of reﬂective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.), Boston: D. C. Heath. 18 Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education, Collier Books, New York. 19 Piaget, J. 1977. e development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures, Viking Press, New York. 20 Duckworth, E. 1996. Either we’re too early and they can’t learn it, or we’re too late and they know it already: e dilemma of ‘applying Piaget’, in e having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning, 2nd. Ed., Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 31-49. 21 Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliﬀs, N.J. 22 Deans, T. 1999. Service-Learning in Two Keys: Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy in Relation to John Dewey’s Pragnatism. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 6, 15-29. 23 Freire, P. 1994. Pedagogy of Hope. NY: Continuum. 24 Kohlberg, L. 1975. e cognitive development approach to moral education, Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 670-677. 25 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development, in L.S. Vygotsky, Mind and Society: e development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 70-91. 26 Duﬀy, J., E. Tsang, S. Lord. 2000. Service-Learning in Engineering: What, Why, and How? American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2006-3630. 27 Hobson, R.S. 2000. Service-Learning as an Educational Tool in an Introduction to Engineering Course. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2000-session 3253. 10 pp. 28 Zarske, M.S., D.T. Reamon, D. Knight. 2011. Altruistic Engineering Projects: Do project-based service learning designs impact attitudes in ﬁrst-year engineering students? American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2011-968. 47 29 McCahan, S. 2007. Team Teaching a Service Learning Course for a Large Class. Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, e Alam Blizzard Award. http://www.stlhe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2007-Blizzard-Paper.pdf 30 Bielefeldt, A.R., M.M. Dewoolkar, K.M. Caves, B.W. Berdanier, and K.G. Paterson. 2011. Diverse Models for Incorporating Service Projects into Engineering Capstone Design Courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(6) 1206-1220. 31 Dewoolkar, M. M., George, L. A., Hayden, N. J., and Rizzo, D. M. (2009), “Vertical integration of service-learning into civil and environmental engineering curricula”, International Journal of Engineering Education 56(6), 1257-1269. 32 Terpenny, J., R. Gao, J. Ritter, D. Fisher, and S. Krishnamurty. 2001. Senior Design Projects to Air the Disabled. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper Session 2325, 11 pp. 33 Fang, C. 2009. Community-based Service Project Learning in Civil Engineering Courses. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2009-1643. 34 Wolfe, F.A. Integrating Service Projects into CER-021 Elementary Surveying. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper Session 2315. 35 Zoghi, M. and M. Pinnell. 2005. Service-Learning Opportunities at the University of Dayton. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. 36 Duﬀy, J., C. Barry, L. Barrington, D. Kazmer, W. Moeller, C. West. 2008. Service-learning projects in 35 core undergraduate engineering courses. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2008-1525. 20 pp. 37 Duﬀy, J., L. Barrington, M. Heredia. 2009. Recruitment, retention, and service learning in engineering. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2009-2138. 27 pp. 38 Flieschmann, S.T. 2001. ABET 2000 and Community Service Projects for Engineering Students. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper Session 2793. 39 Banzaert, A., S. Ariely, D. Wallace, B. Masi. 2005. Faculty Views of Service Learning in Mechanical Engineering. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. 12 pp. 40 Gordon, R., A. Gordon, and P. Bedient. 2006. Rice University Engineers Without Borders: An Exercise in International Service Learning. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2006-1111. 41 Bosscher, P.J., J.S. Russell, and W.B. Stouﬀer. 2005. e Sustainable Classroom: Teaching Sustainability to Tomorrow’s Engineers. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference Proceedings. Portland, OR, June 12-15. 42 R. G. Bringle & J. A. Hatcher. “Implementing service learning in higher education”. Journal of Higher Education, 67, (1996) 221-39. 48 43 A.Driscoll, Holland, B., Gelmon, S. & Kerrigan, S. “An assessment for service learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community and institution” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, (1996) 66-71. 44 D. Panini, & Lasky. K. “Service learning’s foothold in communication scholar- ship”. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 57(2), (2002), 113-125. 45 S.M. Gallini & Moely, B.E. “Service-Learning and Engagement, Academic Challenge, and Retention”, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(1), (2003) 5-14. 46 D. Riley & Bloomgarden, A. H. “Learning and Service in Engineering and Global Development”. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering 2(1), (2006), 48-59. 47 C. George, & Shams, A. “Challenge of Including Customer Satisfaction Into the Assessment Criteria of Overseas Service-Learning Projects”, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 2(2), (2007), 64-75. 48 C. Keen & Hall, K. “Post-Graduation Service and Civic Outcomes for High Financial Need Students of a Multi-Campus, Co-Curricular Service-Learning College Program”. Journal of College and Character, 10(2), Article 2. (2008). DOI: 10.2202/1940-1639.1066 49 J.M. Pearce & ter Horst, E. “Service Learning for Sustainable Development in Languages”, in Filho, W.L. Editor, Sustainability at Universities: Opportunities, Challenges and Trends, (Peter Lang Scientiﬁc Publishers: New York, 2009) 73-85. 50 Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Returning to our roots: e engaged institution. (Washington, DC: National Association for Higher Education, 1999). 51 J. Eyler and D.E. Giles, Where’s the Learning in Service Learning? (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass: 1999). 52 J.A. Boss, “e Eﬀects of Community Service Work on the Moral Development of College Ethics Students”, Journal of Moral Education 23, (1994), 183-198. 53 J. Eyler, S. Root, and D.E. Giles, “Service Learning and the Development of Expert Citizens: Service Learning and Cognitive Science”, In R. Bringle and D. Duﬀy (eds.) With Service in Mind (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Higher Education, 1998). 54 J. Cohen and D. Kinsey, “Doing Good and Scholarship: A Service Learning Study,” Journalism Educator 4, (1994) 14. 55 J. Miller, “Linking Traditional and Service Learning Courses: Outcome Evaluations Utilizing Two Pedagogically Distinct Models,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 1, no. 1 (1994), 29-36. 56 A.W. Astin & Sax, L.J. Long Term Eﬀects of Volunteerism During the Under- graduate Years. e Review of Higher Education, 22(2), (1999) 187-202. 57 J. Cohen and D. Kinsey, “Doing Good and Scholarship: A Service Learning Study,” Journalism Educator 4, (1994) 14. 49 58 D. E. Giles & J. Eyler, “e theoretical roots of service learning in John Dewey: Toward a theory of service learning”. Michigan Journal of Community Service, 1(1), (1994), 77-85. 59 S.M. Gallini & Moely, B.E. “Service-Learning and Engagement, Academic Challenge, and Retention”, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(1), (2003) 5-14. 60 J. M. Pearce & Russill, C. Interdisciplinary Environmental Education: Communicating and Applying Energy Eﬃciency for Sustainability. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 4(1), (2005), 65-72. 61 C. Keen & Hall, K. “Post-Graduation Service and Civic Outcomes for High Financial Need Students of a Multi-Campus, Co-Curricular Service-Learning College Program”. Journal of College and Character, 10(2), Article 2. (2008). DOI: 10.2202/1940-1639.1066 62 Bielefeldt, A.R., M.M. Dewoolkar, K.M. Caves, B.W. Berdanier, and K.G. Paterson. 2011. Diverse Models for Incorporating Service Projects into Engineering Capstone Design Courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(6) 1206-1220. 63 ABET (2010). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Eﬀective for Evaluations During the 2011-2012 Accreditation Cycle, 26 pp., ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. www.abet.org 64 Jaeger, B. and E. LaRochelle. 2009. EWB^2 – Engineers Without Borders: Educationally, a World of Beneﬁts. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2009-740. 65 Bielefeldt, A., C. Swan, and K. Paterson. 2009. Measuring the Impacts of Project-Based Service Learning. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2009-1972. 15 pp. 66 Bielefeldt, A.R., K.G. Paterson, and C.W. Swan. 2010. Measuring the Value Added from Service Learning in Project-Based Engineering Education. e International Journal of Engineering Education. 26 (3): 535-546. 67 Holtzclaw, D., G. Zornes, P. Alvarez. 2007. Assessing Community Impact and Student Learning & Development from an Engineers Without Borders Project. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2007-2450. 2 pp. 68 Ariely, S., A. Banzaert, D. Wallace. 2005. Mechanisms for Implementing Service Learning: Analysis of Eﬀorts in a Senior Product Design Class in Mechanical Engineering. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference Proceedings. 11 pp. 69 Blomstrom, S. and H. Tam. 2009. How and To What Extent Does a Service- Learning Pedagogy Enhance Communication and Collaborative Skill learning Among First-Year Students? American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Paper AC 2009-408, 16 pp. 50 70 Coyle, E.J., L.H. Jamieson, and W.C. Oakes, 2005. EPICS: Engineering Projects in Community Service. Int. J. Engrg. Ed. 21 (1): 139-150. 71 Ejiwale, J., D. Posey. 2008. Enahncing leadership skills through service learning. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2008-2457. 6 pp. 72 Suckarieh, Gl, J. Krupar. 2005. Leadership and Teamwork Education for Engi- neering and Technology Students: An Experiential Learning and Community Service Approach. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. 73 Mehta, S., K. Enger. 2004. Transforming First Year College Experience rough a Unique Learning Community. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper Session 1793. 74 Pruitt, L.A. 2011. Introduction to Engineering Design for Freshman: Implemen- tation of Leadership and Service Learning for Broadening Engineering Ingenuity. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2011-300. 75 Huyck, M., K. Bryant, D. Ferguson. 2009. e Impact of Reﬂections in Service Learning and Other Undergraduate Team Project Learning. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. Paper AC 2009-1032. 11 pp. 76 Bielefeldt, A.R. 2006. Attracting Women to Engineering that Serves Developing Communities. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference. June 19-21, Chicago, IL. 77 Amadei, B. and R. Sandekian. 2010. Model of Integrating Humanitarian Development into Engineering Education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. 136 (2), 84-92. 78 Monroe, W.T., M. Mailander, and M. Lima. 2006. Focus on Experiential Education: A Freshman Engineering Program in Biological Engineering. Int. J. Engng. Ed. 22 (6), 1129-1138. 79 D.H. Meadows, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens III WW. e limits to growth. New York: Universe Books; (1972). 80 D.H. Meadows, Meadows DL, Randers J. Limits to growth: the 30-year update. Chelsea Green Publishing; (2004). 81 United Nations Environmental Programme. Global environmental outlook IV. Available at: http://www.unep.org/geo (2007). 82 World Watch Institute. State of the world 2009: into a warming world. Available at: http://www.world watch.org/sow09 (2009). 83 United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2007/2008, ﬁghting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008 (2007). 84 M. Jacobs, “Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept,” in A. Dobson, Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999). 51 85 J. Agyeman, Bullard, R. D., and Evans, B. eds., Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World (London: Earthscan/MIT Press, 2003). 86 United Nations Development Programme, “Human Development Report 2001: Making new technologies work for human development” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), Available: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/ 87 World Health Organization. e world health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002). 88 M. Ezzati, A.D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, S. Vander Hoorn, C.J.L. Murray, and the Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group. “Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease”. e Lancet 360 (2002), 1347–60. 89 R.E. Black, S.S. Morris, and J. Bryce. “Where and why are 10 million children dying every year?” e Lancet 361 (2003), 2226–34. 90 H. Rolston, Science, religion, and the future. In Religion and Science: History, Method, and Dialogue, edited by W. M. Richardson and W. J. Wildman. (New York: Routledge, 1996) 61-82. 91 United Nations. World Population Prospect: e 2004 revision volume III analytical report. Department of Economic and Social Aﬀairs: Population Division. (New York: United Nations, 2006). 92 K. Al-Khafaji & M. Catherine Morse, “Learning Sustainable Design through Service”, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 1(1) (2006), 1-10. 93 C. Keen & E. Baldwin. “Students Promoting Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability: An Analysis of the Impact of Involvement in a Community-Based Research and Service-Learning Program”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5 (4), (2004) 384–94. 94 A.S. Weinberg, “e University and the Hamlets: Revitalizing Low-Income Communities through University Outreach and Community Visioning Exercises’, American Behavioral Scientist, 42 (5), (1999) 800–13. 95 J.R. Mihelcic, L.D. Phillips and D.W. Watkins. “Integrating a Global Perspective into Education and Research: Engineering International Sustainable Development”, Environmental Engineering Science, 23 (3), (2006) 426–38. 96 J.M. Pearce, “Teaching Science by Encouraging Innovation in Appropriate Technologies for Sustainable Development”, Proceedings of the 11th Annual National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference, (2007) 159–67. 97 J.J. Domask, “Achieving Goals in Higher Education: An Experiential Approach to Sustainability Studies”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8 (1), (2007) 53–68. 98 T. Endreny, “Storm Water Management for Society and Nature via Service Learning, Ecological Engineering and Ecohydrology”, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20 (3), (2004) 445–62. 99 J.M. Pearce, “Teaching Physics Using Appropriate Technology Projects”, e Physics Teacher, 45 (3), (2007) 164–67. 52 100 R. Sandekian, B. Amadei and M. Pinnell. “A Summary of the Workshop on Integrating Appropriate-Sustainable Technology and Service-Learning in Engi- neering Education’, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education (2005). 101 C. Pursell, “e Rise and Fall of the Appropriate Technology Movement in the United States, 1965 - 1985” Technology and Culture, Vol 34, No. 3: 629-637 (July 1993). 102 A. Conteh, “Culture and Transfer of Technology”, in B. Hazeltine and C. Bull (Eds.) Field Guide to Appropriate Technology, Academic Press:London (2003). 103 J. Weiss, George, C., & Walker, J. “ Redesigning an Appropriate Technology Shredder for Manufacture in a Developing Country”. International Journal For Service Learning In Engineering, 1(1). (2006) 11-26. 104 F. Vanek, “Design Philosophies for Appropriate Technology”, in B. Hazeltine and C. Bull (Eds.) Field Guide to Appropriate Technology, Academic Press: London (2003). 105 Ros, J., Lee, C., Bruce, M., Fan, C., Quan, R., & Pai, H. “A Portable and Sustainable Computer Education Project for Developing Countries-Phase 1”. International Journal For Service Learning In Engineering, 1(1) (2006) 27-47. 106 Pearce, J.M. (2009). Appropedia as a Tool for Service Learning in Sustainable Development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(1), 47-55. 107 P. F. Logan, “Physics in Appropriate Technology”, Phys. Technol. 11, (1980) 108 J. M. Pearce and C. Russill, “Student Inquiries Into Neglected Research For A Sustainable Society: Communication and Application,” Bul. of Sci. Tech. & Soc. 23 no. 4, (2003), 311-320. 109 J. M. Pearce, “e Use of Self-Directed Learning to Promote Active Citizenship in Science, Technology and Society Classes”, Bul. of Sci. Tech. & Soc. 21 no. 4, (2001), 312-321. 110 V. A. Winter, “Assessment of Wheelchair Technology in Tanzania”. International Journal For Service Learning In Engineering, 1(2). (2006). http://library.queensu.ca/ ojs/index.php/ijsle/article/view/2085 111 B. omas, “A Wing Powered, White LED Lighting System for the Kibera Slum of Nairobi”. International Journal For Service Learning In Engineering, 2(1). (2007). http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/ijsle/article/view/2089 112 G. Sharan, , Srivastav, S., Rawale, K., & Dave, U. Development of Corrugated Fiber Board Cartons for Long Distance Transport of Tomatoes in India. International Journal For Service Learning In Engineering, 4(1). (2009). http://library.queensu.ca/ ojs/index.php/ijsle/article/view/2225 113 See a list of open source engineering software tools here: http://www.appropedia.org/Open_source_engineering_software 114 http://www.servicelearning.org/topic/quality-components-standards 53 “escientistmerelyexploresthatwhichexists,e engineercreateswhathasneverexistedbefore… ...Whilethehumanitarianengineercollaborates, innovatesandsustainsthatwhichmustbe.” — eodore VonKármán (modiﬁed) Dr. David Munoz examining a borehole water well in Makondo, Uganda. 54 INTRODUCTION Engineers have long been focused on meeting the needs of human- ity. However, during the past century, the acceleration in technological development has resulted in an increased gulf between the developed and developing world, and the engineer’s occupation with the former. ough we have been to the Moon, sent robots to Mars, and done marvelous things on the mega and nano scales, the fact remains that on our unique planet 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25USD per day, over 1 bil- lion people lack access to clean water and 11 million children under the age of ﬁve die every year from malnutrition and disease 1 . Indeed, when we analyze our signiﬁcant infrastructure constructed within the “devel- oped” world during the last century, we see many things that must change to allow for a sustainable future. Energy and water consumption, food production, and the way in which we lead our everyday lives in the “de- veloped” world must change to accommodate a habitable world for our descendents, while also providing an appropriate example for, as well as learning from, the developing world. In reality, we are all “developing” as we seek a sustainable path for our communities. ere are better words to describe the earth's inhabitants. Miguel Karian (1996) introduced the word aﬄuent to refer to the “developed” countries and traditional for the “developing” countries. Hereafter we will use these words to better capture the true meaning. e following deﬁnitions apply. Aﬄuent countries – countries in which the majority of the popula- tion have above average global resource consumption patterns; typically known as developed, Northern, Western or ﬁrst-world countries. David R. Muñoz, PhD Colorado School of Mines Carl Mitcham, PhD Colorado School of Mines, Golden CHAPTER 3 HumanitarianEngineering 55 Traditional countries – countries in which the cultural norms re- main heavily based upon old-world traditions; typically known as develop- ing, Southern, third-world, less-developed or underdeveloped countries 2 . Engineering graduates must understand the global (physical, social, political, cultural, environmental, legal and economic) constraints that they face and how to use the available tools as they consider the long view, while working to meet the needs of local people – the essence of Human- itarian Engineering. THE ROLE OF ENGINEERING IN SOCIETY Development of engineering as a discipline has been an evolutionary process. e forerunners of engineers, practical artists and craftsmen, proceeded mainly by trial and error. Yet tinkering combined with imag- ination produced many marvelous devices. Many ancient monuments around the world incite admiration that is embodied in the name “engi- neer” itself. In the west the word originated in the eleventh century from the Latin ingeniator, meaning one with ingenium, or the ingenious one. e name, used for builders of ingenious fortiﬁcations or makers of in- genious devices, was closely related to the notion of ingenuity, which was captured in the old meaning of “engine” until the word was taken over by steam engines and the like 3 . In general, the classical and medieval engineers did not have a quan- tiﬁed, scientiﬁc basis for their designs. ere were exceptions such as the case of ﬁve simple machines – lever, wheel, pulley, wedge, and screw. Mathematical analysis of these machines had begun to take shape among the Greeks of the fourth century BC. However, their results were by no means wholly theoretical. Development of an ‘engineering discipline’ was confronted by a myr- iad of impediments; for example (but certainly not limited to): a. the diﬃculties of making calculations without the place-number and decimal systems, b. the fact that engineers and master craftsmen were often illiterate (at least in the sense that they could not read the languages in which the theoretical treatises were written), c. the fact that engineers have to apply themselves to whatever the concerns of their patrons are at any given time. Versatility was normal, but it was also essential. Specialization was a relatively new concept. d. the fact that with so many problems in engineering their solution demands the use of diﬀerential or integral calculus, which was not invented until the seventeenth century. Of all the scholars whose names have come down to us, only al- Jazari 4 (late twelfth century, encyclopedia.com, 2008) seems to have de- voted his entire life to engineering. Many others began their careers in a variety of occupations: Ctesibius (285 - 222 BC), according to Vitruvius (~80 – 15 BC) 5 , was the son of a barber and developed many inventions as a result of his intense curiosity; Guido da Vigevano (14th century) was trained in medicine, Mariano Taccola (15th century) was an artist and sculptor. Al-Biruni (973-1048 AD), probably the greatest scientist of me- dieval Islam, made astronomical instruments and studied mining tech- nology 6 . No doubt there was an element of prestige in having learned men attached to one’s court, but, much like engineers working in today's world, they were expected to earn their keep as physicians, astronomers, teachers, architects, and engineers. Engineers have claimed a history that goes back to the builders of medieval cathedrals, Roman aqueducts, and Egyptian pyramids. But these contexts and constraints were so diﬀerent from those of the modern period that the only support for such a claim is to conceive of engineering in quite abstract terms. Using a suﬃciently abstract description, almost everything human does some form of engineering. is is the argument, for instance, of the engineer philosopher B. V. Koen, (2003) 7 , when he identiﬁes engineering with heuristic decision making. Engineering is a socially constructed profession with a contextualizing and constraining history continuous with the present. Engineering arose in the late me- dieval or early modern period, initially in a military context. e ﬁrst institutions of engineering education were created by na- tional governments and closely linked with the military. One early exam- ple is the Academy of Military Engineering established at Moscow in 1698 by Czar Peter the Great. Engineers started to detach themselves from the 56 military context during the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. John Smeaton (1724-1792), a member of the Royal Society who began to use scientiﬁc methods to analyze construction projects, was the ﬁrst to denom- inate himself as a “civil engineer”. Smeaton founded the Society of Civil Engineers, which became the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) in 1818, the ﬁrst oﬃcially recognized professional engineering society. Civil engi- neering was simply deﬁned as all non-military engineering. e description clearly included both what would now be called civil engineering (the de- signing of roads, dams, and related infrastructures), mechanical engineer- ing (working with power and machines), and hydraulic engineering (irrigation and drainage). us, it is perfectly reasonable to apply his deﬁ- nition of civil engineering to engineering in general 4 . For roughly the ﬁrst hundred years, until the early 1900s, the engi- neering ability to re-design the world and its usefulness in increasing human productivity, in conjunction with industrial economic expansion, was always assumed, precisely because of such utility, to be good. When engineers began to formulate explicit codes of ethics they tended to em- phasize collaboration with business and industrial interests. Primary ex- amples were the codes of ethics of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE, adopted 1912), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), both of which were adopted in 1914 4 . ese early codes of ethics were intended to document existing standards of behavior rather than establish ideals toward which the engineer may strive 8 . Engineering may be thought of as the “art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of humans” (Mc- Graw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 10th Ed. 2007) Humanitarianism is another instance that indirectly invites engi- neers to self-examination and to consider alternative contexts to those for which their professional practices have commonly been pursued. HUMANITARIANISM Humanitarianism is deﬁned as an ethic of kindness, benevolence and sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings. Hu- manitarianism has been an evolving concept historically but universality 57 is a common element in its evolution. No distinction is to be made in the face of human suﬀering or abuse on grounds of gender, tribal, caste, reli- gious, or national divisions. e evolution of humanitarianism has been a complex phenome- non as well. e roots of humanitarian criticism, or of restricted forms of community and the promotion of equity or equality among humans, are many. One root, for instance, is the cosmopolitanism of Greek and Roman philosophy. Some ancient philosophers argued that the whole cos- mos (Greek for physical universe) constituted a kind of polis, making all human beings members of a single community. Diogenes of Sinope (c.400s BCE), when asked his citizenship, is reported to have answered, “I am a citizen of the world” (kosmopolitêsin Greek) 4 . Another root is Christian missionary theology illustrated by St. Paul, who argued a supernatural version of universalism; insofar as all human beings are created by and equal in the sight of God, they are members of a common community with obligations to care for one another 4 . A third root is to be found in the moral principles of Enlightenment philosophy in both the empiricist and rationalist traditions. With regard to empiricism, Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) defended sympathy as the foundational moral sentiment. is sentiment, expressible as benevolence and concerned especially to secure such basic goods as food, shelter, and social relationships not just for ourselves but for all and thus structures human behavior. From the tradition of rationalism, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804) argued for recognition of a cat- egorical obligation to treat all humans as ends in themselves 4 . None of these historical inﬂuences, however, adopted the term “hu- manitarianism.” Indeed, in its initial secular uses in the early 1800s the term was largely derogatory, as denoting excess in the promotion of hu- mane principles over more realistic or patriotic ones. People more con- cerned about the poor in a foreign country than the welfare of their own families were sometimes disparaged as “humanitarians.” In the late 1800s, however, the term began to take on positive connotations, as when the American sociologist Lester F. Ward described humanitarianism as aiming “at the reorganization of society, so that all shall possess equal advantages for gaining a livelihood and contributing to the [common] welfare” 58 (Ward, L., 1883, p. 450) 9 . Only after the fact were social movements grounded in the goal of meeting the basic needs of all persons irrespective of national or other distinctions—often with a special focus on health care, food, and shelter—interpreted as expressions of something called a humanitarian movement 4 . EvolutionoftheHumanitarianMovement e ﬁrst major movement of active compassion that would come to be called humanitarianism addressed the issue of slavery. e struggle for racial equality has been a key in anticipation of a more universal hu- manitarianism. A second major movement in the development of hu- manitarianism is associated with the promotion of child welfare and labor protection legislation, and involved as well a democratic extension of the voting franchise that in eﬀect challenged class privilege and economic dis- criminations. PhaseOne(1800’s):RiseoftheHumanitarianMovementProper e humanitarian movement is generally understood to have orig- inated in the mid- to late 1800s. is origination is associated with the rise of the profession of nursing, as promoted in the work of Mary Seacole (1805-1881) and Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) in the Crimean War (1854-1856) and Clara Barton (1821-1912) in the U.S. Civil War (1861- 1865). But the key event was the reaction of Swiss businessman Henri Dunant (1828-1910) to the Battle of Solferino (1859), which ended the Second Italian War of Independence. Dunant’s vision led to the 1863 creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent (ICRC), which currently deﬁnes itself as “an impartial, neutral and inde- pendent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to pro- tect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conﬂict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.” 4, 10 PhaseTwo(Early1900’s):HumanitarianismBeyondtheBattleﬁeld During a second phase, the ﬁrst half of the 20th century saw the development of new forms of humanitarianism that expanded the move- ment beyond the limits of medical care directed toward military person- 59 nel. e ICRC became concerned with the plight of civilian non-com- batants and for persons caught in natural disasters. New models of hu- manitarianism can be found in the work of Norwegian scientist and explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930) and of U.S. mining and civil en- gineer Herbert Hoover (1874-1962): Nansen in post-World War I work resettling refugees under the auspices of the League of Nations, and Hoover in relief work during and after the war as well as in response to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 4,10 . Phaseree(1950’s-1960’s):Humanitarianism asFreeWorldIdeology is period witnessed the emergence of humanitarian nongovern- mental organizations (NGOs) other than the ICRC: e.g., Baptist World Aid (1905), American Friends Service Committee (1917), Catholic Med- ical Mission Board (1928), Save the Children (1932), OXFAM (1942), and CARE (Cooperative Action for American Relief Everywhere, 1945).Creation of the United Nations (1945) and the international adop- tion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provided a further basis for questioning the primacy of national sovereignty 4,10 . In this third phase, something like humanitarian development be- came a kind of free-world ideological alternative to Communism. Insofar as it grew out of post-World War II relief and recovery eﬀorts, this third phase in the historical development of humanitarian thinking also highlighted eﬀorts that go beyond some immediate response to a crisis. Simple crisis intervention humanitarianism, it was increasingly recognized, needs to be complemented with crisis recovery humanitarianism. PhaseFour(1970’s-1990’s):AlternativeHumanitarianisms Beginning in the late 1960s, however, and indicative of a fourth phase, humanitarianism began to separate itself from its previous close association with anti-communism. One key event was the Nigerian Civil War in the break-away province of Biafra (1969), which also became the ﬁrst televised international humanitarian crisis. Under such conditions, humanitarian aid workers began to challenge even more strongly than had been done after World War II, the principle of respect for national 60 61 sovereignty. Aid workers began to want to openly criticize governments on both sides of the civil war and governments outside the conﬂict sup- porting one side or the other. e resulting crisis of conscience in the hu- manitarian community catalyzed the founding, of Médecins sans Frontieres (MSF, or Doctors without Borders) in 1971, by the French physician Bernard Kouchner. MSF, which has become the largest non- governmental relief agency in the world, grew out of dissatisfaction with the inability of the Red Cross/Crescent to react independently of national government controls, and its tendency to remain within safe boundaries; MSF refused to be limited by state sovereignty 4,10 . PhaseFive(2000-PRESENT):HumanitarianismGlobalizedand Questioned Finally, in the context of the end of the Cold War (early 1990s), a widely adopted sense of humanitarianism was adopted. is trajectory is best represented by the “United Nations Millennium Declaration” (2000), in which the member states recognized, “in addition to separate respon- sibilities to [their] individual societies,…a collective responsibility to up- hold the principles of human dignity” and a duty “to all the world’s people, especially the most vulnerable” (Section I, paragraph 2). In addi- tion, only through broad and sustained eﬀorts to create a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity, can globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable 4,10 . e “Millennium Declaration” was extended into the Millennium Project, commissioned by UN Secretary-General Koﬁ Anan in 2002 to develop a concrete action plan to eradicate the most extreme poverty by 2015. In this project humanitarian action came to focus not so much on crisis relief or even recovery but rather on crisis prevention humanitari- anism. MillenniumDevelopmentGoals e eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) constitute an eﬀort to operationalize the United Nations Millennium Declaration (Sep- tember 2000). e MDGs (adopted in 2001) are: 62 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 2. Achieve universal primary education 3. Promote gender equality and empower women 4. Reduce child mortality 5. Improve maternal health 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development HUMANITARIAN ENGINEERING It is against this backdrop, the convergence of engineering and hu- manitarianism that the discipline of “humanitarian engineering” has emerged. In general terms, engineering is the ‘artful drawing on science to di- rect the resources of nature for the use and the convenience of humans’. Humanitarianism has been generalized as an ‘active compassion directed toward meeting the basic needs of all — especially the powerless, poor, or otherwise marginalized’. Humanitarian engineering may thus be de- scribed as ‘the artful drawing on science to direct the resources of nature with active compassion to meet the basic needs of all—especially the pow- erless, poor, or otherwise marginalized’. To some degree humanitarian en- gineering is related to what Mitcham (2003) has termed “idealistic activism” among scientists and engineers, as exempliﬁed by organizations such as International Pugwash (founded 1957) and the Union of Con- cerned Scientists (founded 1969). PeaceCorps Growing up during the Great Depression in Iowa, Maurice (Maury) Albertson (1918-2009) was strongly inﬂuenced by a family commitment to try to live out the Christian message of the Sermon on the Mount and by witnessing the impact of an extended drought on farmers and their communities. is led him to study water resource engineering and earn a doctorate from the University of Iowa. After graduation, in 1947 he joined the faculty at Colorado State University. He had been impressed with the way the Marshall Plan helped Europe recover after World War II. As a result, Albertson’s co-authored a report, expanded into book form, which became New Frontiers for American Youth: Perspective on the Peace Corps (Albertson et al., 1961). e book explicitly describes the Peace Corps as extending the reach of volunteer Christian international service organizations into the promotion of American political ideals and lists among its Principal Project Needs, “engineering (irrigation, commu- nity water supply, ﬂood control, roads, surveying, bridges)” (Albertson et al., 1961, p. 39) 11 . As an upshot of his report, Albertson was asked by the late R. Sargent Shriver, the ﬁrst director of the Peace Corps, to head a panel that would lay out many of the operational structures which, in short order, had over 10,000 volunteers serving in some 50 countries 4 . MedecinsSansFrontieres-DoctorsWithoutBorders Perhaps even more inﬂuential than any one individual has been the model of Doctors without Borders mentioned earlier. Nearly all individ- uals involved in humanitarian work fundamentally accepted, even when they were frustrated by, the notion of national sovereignty. e U.S. Peace Corps, with which Albertson was so involved, is actually an agency of a sovereign country. It thus tends to reinforce the whole concept of sover- eignty or the idea that national governments have the ﬁnal say over what goes on within their state boundaries. At the same time, from its begin- nings, humanitarianism involved a questioning of the idea of sovereignty and associated ideas such as national patriotism and sacriﬁce. One of the fundamental tenants of MSF was to criticize and reject the primacy of national sovereignty as a ﬁnal arbiter of boundaries for humanitarian ac- tion. MSF activists are committed to going where the problems are, even without the permissions of national governments, and to exposing the misbehaviors of governments toward their own peoples, insofar as these misbehaviors involve mistreating their citizens or depriving them of pro- tection and care 4,10 . Stimulated by the ideals of MSF, the late 20th century also wit- nessed emergence of a host of other MSF-like NGOs for lawyers without borders, builders without borders, and so on. Yet one of the strongest par- allel ‘without-borders’ organizational developments has been associated with some form of the name “Engineers without Borders,” in which en- 63 gineering students and their professors began independently to explore possibilities of humanitarian engineering in diverse localities: Ingénieurs sans Frontiers (France, 1982), Ingénieurs Assistance Internationale (Bel- gium, c.1987), Ingeniería sin Fronteras (Spain, 1990), Ingeniererunden Graenser (Denmark, c.1992), Ingenjöreroch Naturvetareutan Gräser- Sverige (Sweden, c.1995), Engineers without Borders (UK, 2001), Engi- neers without Borders (Australia, 2003), Ingenieureohne Grenzen (Germany, 2003), Ingeneríasenza Frontiere (Italy, c.2005), and others. In 2003 a number of these groups organized “Engineers without Borders — International” as a network to promote “humanitarian engineering…for a better world,” now constituted by more than 41 national member or- ganizations 4 . Complementing such interests among engineers, humanitarians have increasingly come to see engineering and technology as having in- creasingly crucial roles to play in the world of humanitarian action. ere is a lot of potential for adapting and creating technologies for humani- tarian ends, but new technologies will not automatically be put to humane uses without the political will and the economic means to do so. is ne- cessitates building upon and furthering the trend of enlargement of hu- manitarian concern and expanded organizational eﬀort collaboration, insight and input of the poor as well as iteration based on feedback from the many failed humanitarian engineering eﬀorts. It means mobilization of the new culture to encourage the wealthy part of the globe to make the economic sacriﬁces necessary to create and apply technology in eﬀec- tive ways (Cahill, K., 2005, p. 19) 12 . HumanitarianEngineering:CoreFeatures As cited above, humanitarianism has gone through a number of de- velopmental phases. Over the latter decades of the 20th century, a new context for the practice of engineering has been constituted. One can ab- stract some key attributes of the humanitarian engineering ideal that em- phasize the notions not just of crisis intervention humanitarianism but also vulnerability reduction leading to more rapid crisis recovery and even crisis prevention. e central feature of the humanitarian movement as a whole has been the exercise of active compassion for those on the margins 64 of social wealth and power. is marginality can be temporary or more long-term, but in either case humanitarian action aims to serve the well- being of otherwise marginalized populations. In contrast to corporations which aim for relatively near-term proﬁt, and governments which fund in light of election cycles and thus con- stituent dependencies, humanitarian engineering projects ideally engage local communities in direct participation in determining project needs and directions, and think in terms not of years but of decades in the im- pact. Additionally, they seek strategies, designs, and technologies that pro- mote both the sustainability of natural systems and cultural traditions (see, e.g., Azpagic et al., 2004 13 and Mulder, K., 2006 14 ). Engineering itself has been described as design within a context or under constraints —constraints largely imposed by physical, political, cul- tural, ethical, legal, environmental, and economic phenomena. Insofar as this is the case, humanitarian engineering may conveniently be described as working to escape what has been called the “social captivity of engi- neering” by capitalism or nationalism or some other form of wealth and power (Goldman ,1991 15 ; see also Johnston et al.,1996 16 ). In doing so, however, humanitarian engineering seeks to work within a new self-im- posed constraint of seeking to help meet the basic needs of under-served populations. In brief, humanitarian engineering in the most general terms is ‘the artful drawing on science to direct the resources of nature with ac- tive compassion to meet the basic needs of all—especially the powerless, poor, or otherwise marginalized’. HUMANITARIAN ENGINEERING EDUCATION As Bernard Amadei and William Wallace have stated, A new form of engineering education is needed, one that covers a wide range of technical and non-technical issues, including water provisioning and puriﬁcation, sanitation, public health, power production, shelter, site planning, infrastructure, food production and distribution, and communication.…e challenge of creat- ing a sustainable world demands a new and holistic look at the 65 role of engineering in society … to allow all humans to enjoy a quality of life where basic needs of water, sanitation, nutrition, health, safety, and meaningful work are fulﬁlled. — Bernard Amadei and William A. Wallace, “Engineering for Human Development”(2009) 17 . e development of humanitarian engineering education naturally follows the rise of student interest in humanitarian engineering. Such ed- ucation will obviously beneﬁt from an appreciation of engineering as a context dependent, externally constrained activity, as well as from some general knowledge of the history and development of humanitarianism. But we would emphasize, as is the case with most engineering problems, that there is seldom a single right way to design a humanitarian engineer- ing curriculum. Instead, even more so in this regard than in many others, there is a recurring need to take clients, aspirations, resources, and context into account. WhatCountsasaHumanitarianEngineeringProject Deciding what truly counts as a humanitarian engineering project is not always easy. Eﬀorts to clarify understandings in this regard within the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) undergraduate Humanitarian En- gineering Minor program have led to the formulation of a set of four guiding criteria: 1. ere must be a need that originates with the people directly beneﬁtting from any proposed work. 2. Whatever need is involved should be related to a basic human need, although it is also possible to include higher level needs such as education and economic development. 3. Good communication is essential with the people directly ben- eﬁtting from the work and/or commonly through an NGO in- timately familiar with the local context. 4. e need should be one that can beneﬁt from engineering skill and knowledge. 66 One way to operationalize the ﬁrst criterion is to use the engineering design process systematized as the “quality function deployment tech- nique” (see Cohen, L., 1995 18 ). e fundamental idea is to begin by iden- tifying stakeholders and then working with them to establish a set of prioritized needs. Subsequent analysis compares competing solutions and ﬁnally, based on such inputs, design speciﬁcations are developed. e second criterion is more problematic than it may initially ap- pear to engineers. e reason is that human needs depend on human in- terpretations, which in turn are strongly inﬂuenced by cultural beliefs about the nature and meaning of human life. Nevertheless, from a per- spective that necessarily reﬂects Western engineering beliefs, a hierarchy of physiological needs exists deﬁned by survival time for anyone denied access to a number of basic life requirements. At the same time, to think only in these terms would signiﬁcantly limit humanitarian engineering. It is thus necessary to move beyond such immediately physiological or technical considerations, to psychological, social, and political concerns, when thinking about basic needs. Working with criteria three and four promotes, even more than cri- terion two, appreciation of the degree to which psychological, social, cul- tural, and political aspects of a project are often as much, if not more, crucial than technical ones. Communication is crucial among all those involved in humanitarian engineering projects, engineers and non-engi- neers alike. erefore, education in communication skills that go beyond abilities in simple technical communication are important. Communica- tion has to be oriented not just toward the facilitating of technical team eﬀectiveness but toward the creation of interdisciplinary communities. Such recognition promotes deeper understandings of (sustainable com- munity) development (Bridger and Luloﬀ, 1999 19 ). If projects really are to beneﬁt others, it is crucial to seek out local sources of knowledge and to value them, which can sometimes demote the importance of technical engineering skills and knowledge. is idea, known as participatory ac- tion research, is an extension of ideas from Freire (1970) 20 , and has been elaborated by Stephen Biggs 21 (see analyses in Fals-Borda and Rahman, eds., 1991 22 ). In order for any humanitarian engineering project to be so- cially sustained, there must be ownership on the part of the local people. 67 A major source of ownership comes from the engagement or participation of the local people in all aspects of the design process. Freire would go further to say that the oppressed are the only ones with the power to free themselves and their oppressors from the oppressive relationship. After the oppressed become educated about their oppression, they must develop solutions to both their problems and those of their oppressors who have had a part in causing the problems in the ﬁrst place. Participatory research, which can include engineering design and construction work, includes a spectrum of at least four modes of partici- pation 23 : 1. Contractual : Local people are contracted into the projects of the researchers to take part in theirinquires or experiments. 2. Consultative: Local people are asked their opinions and con- sulted by researchers before interventions are made. 3. Collaborative: Researchers and local people work together on projects designed, initiated, and managed by researchers. 4. Collegial : Researchers and local people work together as col- leagues with diﬀerent skills to oﬀer, in a process of mutual learn- ing where local people have control over the process. As a result, it is possible to conceptualize a need among engineers to look for opportunities to help build capacity for autonomous action among those with whom they work. In this regard, a series of questions adapted and expanded from Baillie (2006) 24 can serve as a template for self-examination. In thinking about any project, it is useful to ask: • Who beneﬁts and who pays? • Who stands to gain or lose? • Who decides who needs what and when? • Who is contributing to the design and implementation? • How will the project be sustained? is new understanding of Freire's book among others calls for a modiﬁcation of the humanitarianism deﬁnition, and thus the deﬁnition 68 of the humanitarian engineer. We now understand that the local people with whom we work are not powerless and indeed hold great power (through education) to overcome any oppression that may exist. Addi- tionally, though a human being may be poor in economic terms, they may be wealthy in other ways: intellectual or intuitive capacity, indigenous knowledge, family values, etc. erefore, the deﬁnition of the humani- tarian engineer is modiﬁed to ‘the artful drawing on science to direct the resources of nature with active compassion to meet the basic needs of all—especially the economically poor, or otherwise marginalized’. THE NEEDS QUESTION Six distinct groups will beneﬁt from the long-term and sustained eﬀorts to develop the goals and critical aspects of a Humanitarian Engi- neering program. ese groups represent such a large constituency that hopefully the concepts described herein will ultimately become inter- woven in the fabric of engineering education in general. e six groups discussed here are: the Global Community (primarily people in the “tra- ditional” world), students, faculty, industry, and the government and non- governmental organizations (NGOs). For present purposes we combine government and NGOs. NeedsoftheGlobalCommunity e world is and has always been full of human suﬀering. e global community needs young people educated in the art of communication with enhanced social/cultural sensitivity in addition to knowledge of ap- propriate and sustainable technologies to help meet basic human needs. Humanitarian needs can be conceptually distinguished into three major categories. ese are: emergency humanitarian response, preventive hu- manitarian action and humanitarian development. As the title of the ﬁrst category implies, emergency humanitarian response needs relate to natural or human-made disasters. e failures of past emergency humanitarian responses have been documented by Reiﬀ 25 and are currently being revised as many aid organizations contemplate the 2010 earthquake disasters in Haiti and Chile. Universities are gener- ally poorly equipped to deal with the emergency response need. 69 However, we believe that preventive humanitarian action and hu- manitarian development can be addressed well by the engineering educa- tion community, including the possibility for a valuable service learning practical capstone experience. ese areas are the focus of Humanitarian Engineering eﬀorts across the country; preventing human-made disasters, minimizing the impact of natural disasters, and aiding in community de- velopment by design. Clearly, preventive and development needs are complex and of enor- mous scope. What is needed is that which the anthropologists have re- ferred to as a collegiate relationship with or participatory involvement of the local people 22 . Developing relationships takes time and patience, but we believe will in the end, yield great beneﬁt. For example Ramaswami et al. (2007) 26 describe several examples of indigenous solutions to problems that were superior to those provided by their more aﬄuent counterparts. eStudentNeed Downey et al. (2006) 27 identiﬁed a set of challenges that face engi- neers from diverse cultures and societies working together on international engineering design teams. ey deﬁne the term global competency for the engineer and suggest that engineers from diﬀerent cultures deﬁne problems diﬀerently. ey also provide measures for assessing student performance at attaining a speciﬁc set of learning outcomes. While there are certainly challenges associated with this culturally diverse mix of pro- fessionals that must be added to the student repertoire, signiﬁcant and complex challenges in societal and cultural diﬀerences also exist between the team of professionals and their stakeholders, the local traditional peo- ple (with basic outstanding needs). A key factor in the success of a hu- manitarian engineering endeavor is the ability to listen, indeed the ability to listen contextually as described in the recent publication by Lucena, Schneider and Leydens (2010) 28 is critical. Prospective students are pleasantly surprised to learn about the types of Humanitarian Engineering senior design projects available at univer- sities across the country. It is possible to attract students who had not pre- viously thought that engineering was the ﬁeld for them until they realized the possibility of making a direct and positive contribution to addressing humanitarian needs. Human motivation including that of our students 70 71 is piqued when working on projects deemed altruistic. Maslow argued that there is a general progression within humans, from the physiological to higher level needs (See Figure 3.1). For example, he suggested that aesthetic needs do not enter one’s mind if one is genuinely hungry and thirsty. at said, experience has shown that the participants (faculty and students alike) often gain more out of the process (in learning, experience, etc.) than the local people. While the local people give their time, re- sources and trust, the students become aware that, because of the tight university schedule, their time onsite is necessarily short, unless they de- cide to return for an extended visit and commonly feel that they are the more signiﬁcant beneﬁciaries of the experience. eIndustryNeed One of industry’s needs in this regard is evidenced by survey results as well as discussions with engineering recruiters from major multinational corporations. Industry and recruiters were asked, “What do you feel are the attributes required in future engineering graduates compared to those of the engineering graduates of the past twenty years?” e quickly pro- vided answer was “increased sensitivity to societal and cultural issues”. Some recruiters then related stories about how past insensitivity to soci- FIGURE 3.1 MASLOW’S HIERARCHY 72 etal/cultural issues have resulted in costly consequences. Such stories are common within technology companies that have international reach, but it should be no surprise that similar issues occur on projects within the borders of the United States. Various industries have recognized that their business sustainability depends in no small part on their ability to achieve social acceptance within the local community in which they work. eGovernmentandNGONeeds e United States government has many organizations that provide aid to the traditional world. e Peace Corps has already been mentioned, but there is also U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and international programs within other governmental agencies. e U.S. military also has active programs through the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Seabees to perform infrastructure construction projects throughout the world. In the book, Stones to Schools 29 , the former Chair- man of the Joint Chiefs of Staﬀ, Admiral Mike Mullen recognized the importance of this sensitivity: “Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist’s narrative.” Paul Hawken’s Blessed Unrest 30 , written in part to explain the large number of non-proﬁt or non-governmental organizations that are trying to do positive work around the world, argues that this movement is the largest in human history. ough little data exists, many engineers are likely working with several of the kinds of organizations Hawken de- scribes. However, little centralized eﬀorts currently exist for deﬁning a ca- reer path for interested students. e reality is that such organizations seek engineers seasoned with tempering experience from the Peace Corp or some other service organization. eFacultyTeam It is critically important that a humanitarian engineering program be ad- ministered by an interdisciplinary team with representatives from at least the humanities/social sciences and engineering academic communities. Within many, perhaps most, universities this is no small feat. For various reasons, 73 the ivory towers have high and strong walls that must be overcome if a suc- cessful program in humanitarian engineering is to be developed. ere are always challenges to consider when working in interdisci- plinary teams. A few useful references are Klein (1990) 31 , a recent publi- cation from the NAE entitled Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Pellmar et al. (2000) 32 . Some potential barriers to interdisciplinary re- search are cited in Table 3.1. Potential Barrier Barrier Explanation Team Goals Attitudinal Researchers may recognize the need for interdisciplinary work but remain reluctant to leave their dis- ciplinary focus. Interdisciplinary science is viewed as second-rate Disseminate gained knowledge in high- quality publications to prominent journals and conferences Communication Over use of language and jargon speciﬁc to a particular ﬁeld Use common language, learn the language of another ﬁeld, frequently communicate Intellectual Turf Other disciplines viewed as less rigorous or important than their own Work to understand and appreciate the value and limits of each team member’s expertise Team Building Mutual trust in teammate’s skills and expertise All voices are heard, work toward mutual trust and respect. Leadership Credible, skilled at modulating strong personalities and in group dynamics, maturity in ﬁeld, previous experience in conducting interdisciplinary research Team will support the leadership Facilitating Interactions Organize the physical environ- ment to promote the encounter of disciplinary researchers Team will coordinate seminars and advertise both on and oﬀ campus, and initiate interactions with an external Advisory Board TABLE 3.1 POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH 74 Another problem often encountered in development of a Human- itarian Engineering program, especially during the process of achieving faculty approval to initiate the program, is the belief that all of engineering is humanitarian. Put another way, the question was asked, “Does that mean the rest us are working on un-humanitarian engineering?” Good question. e response is in the deﬁnition cited earlier of humanitarian engineering: the artful drawing on science to direct the resources of nature with active compassion to meet the basic needs of all—especially the eco- nomically poor or otherwise marginalized. e key diﬀerence is the target audience. NewDimensionsinEngineeringandEducation Given this model, it is tempting to think of the motivation of hu- manitarian engineers is situated on higher levels of the hierarchy or power, with the aim of meeting the lower level needs of those being assisted. is is one possible interpretation. At the same time, there is something insid- ious if not insulting in a framework that ends up placing those on the ini- tiating side of humanitarian work on a higher psychological level than those on the receiving side. Moreover, this power diﬀerential — and es- pecially the resulting dynamics — surely reﬂects the beliefs and assump- tions of American engineers operating in the context of what has often been described as a needs-based materialistic culture (see, e.g., Illich, I., 1967 33 ). What, we may ask, are the relationships between typically mod- ern discussions of need in contrast with more traditional notions of the good? Maslow’s model may thus function not only as an explanatory model but also as a framework for self-questioning. One result of such introspection might be a critical reformulation of ideas about how we live in the “aﬄuent world” and the imagination of models for environmentally sustainable living in a sustainable global econ- omy. After considering the energy and material intensive aspects of our so- ciety, one cannot help but question its use as a model. Might we be able to learn how to live more sustainably from the traditional people that we thought we were visiting to help? Additionally, as one aspiring humanitar- ian engineer noted with regard to himself: ‘Initially, I was excited about [humanitarian engineering] because of the opportunities to design appro- 75 priate technologies for needy international communities. While this ex- citement does still exist, [after study and experience] I am much more leery; during the process I learned a lot about technology in society, the need to challenge structures, the need to work in one’s own community, and the dangers of international placements’ (VanderSteen, J., 2008, p.288) 34 . e words of Gustavo Esteva 35 , friend and colleague of Ivan Illich describe well the challenge of “helping”. “If you come to help, don’t come. But if you see that your struggle is our struggle, then come and stay with us for awhile. After some time we may ﬁnd something to work on together.” As we struggle with the immense challenges of meeting the world’s basic human needs into the foreseeable future, we realize that this is not a problem only of technology or of helping, but more so a problem of learning to listen and work together in collegial relationships with people living in our local and not so local communities. Considering the other side of the coin, we believe that engineers have something to oﬀer. We live in a technological world. While it is highly unlikely that technology will provide a magic elixir for these sub- stantial problems that we now face, it can be a part of the solution. ere- fore, the humanitarian engineer must be prepared to ‘artfully draw on science to direct the resources of nature with active compassion to meet the basic needs of all—especially the economically poor or otherwise mar- ginalized, always seeking a balance of listening and learning from the tradi- tional people while humbly sharing appropriate engineering knowledge’. Acknowledgements is work in humanitarian engineering (HE) was initiated as part of a block grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, entitled, Engineering Schools of the West Initiative (ESWI). eir early and gen- erous support is gratefully acknowledged. Additionally, many students and colleagues from Colorado School of Mines participated in developing the HE minor program. ough there are too many to recognize here, several of these have been exceptional contributors and are acknowledged 76 as follows, Sanaa Azim, Heidi Bauer, F. Edward Cecil, Laurin Cooper, Joseph Crocker, Joan Gosink, Jon Leydens, Ning Lu, Juan Lucena, Bar- bara Moskal, Junko Munakata-Marr, Arthur Sacks, George (Jerry) Sherk, Jay Straker, Marcelo Simões, Catherine Skokan, Robert (Doug) Sutton, Julie VanLaanen and Natalie Wagner and Sandy Woodson. REFERENCES 1 United Nations, Millennium Goals Report 2009 (New York, United Nations, 2009) http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_Report_2009_ENG.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010). 2 Karian, Michael. (1996). Technology and the Environment. In R. L. Custer & A. E. Wiens (Eds.), Technology and the Quality of Life. (Council on Technology Teacher Education Yearbook). Peoria, IL: Glencoe. 3 Mitcham, C. and Munoz, D., Humanitarian Engineering, Morgan and Claypool Publishers, Caroline Baillie, Series Editor, 2010. 4 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2830904902.html (accessed June 27, 2011). 5 Vitruvius, Ten Books of Architecture, translated by Morris Hicky Morgan, Harvard University Press, 1914. 6 http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Al-Biruni.html (accessed June 27, 2011) 7 Koen, Billy Vaughn (2003) Discussion of Method: Conducting the Engineer’s Approach to Problem Solving, New York: Oxford University Press. 8 Pfatteicher, Sarah K.A., (2003), “Depending on Character: ASCE Shapes Its Forst Code of Ethics, “ J. of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 21-31. 9 Ward, Lester F. (1883) Dynamic Sociology, vol.2. New York: Appleton. 10 Smyser, W.R., e Humanitarian Conscience; Caring for Others in the Age of Terror, Palgrave McMillan (2003). 11 Albertson, Maurice L., Andrew E. Rice and Pauline E. Birky. (1961) New Frontiers for American Youth: Perspectives on the Peace Corps. Washington DC: Public Aﬀairs Press. 12 Cahill, Kevin M., Ed. (2005), Technology for Human Action, Ney York, Fordham University Press and Center for International Health and Cooperation. 13 Azpagic, Adisa, Perdan Slobodan, and Clift, Roland, Eds. (2004), Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists, Chichester, UK: John Wiley. 14 Mulder, Karel (2006) Sustainable Development for Engineers; A Handbook and Resource Guide, Sheﬃeld, UK: Greenleaf Publishers. 15 Goldman, Steven L. (1991) “e Social Captivity of Engineering,” In Paul T. Durbin, ed., Critical Perspectives on Nonacademic Science and Engineering (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press), pp. 121-145. 16 Johnston, Stephen, Lee, Alison and McGregor, Helen (1996) “Engineering as Captive Discourse,” Society for Philosophy and Technology Electronic Journal, vol. 1, nos. 3-4. 17 Amadei, Bernard and Wallace, William A., (2009) “Engineering for Human Development” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 28, issue 4, pp. 1-5. 18 Cohen, Lou (1995) Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You. Englewood Cliﬀs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 19 Bridger, J.C. and Luloﬀ, A.E. (1999) “Toward an Interactional Approach to Sustainable Community Development,” Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 377-387. 20 Freire, Paolo (1970, 2009) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition, Continuum International Publishing Group. 21 Biggs, Stephen. (1989) Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper 3. e Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research. 22 Fals-Borda, Orlando and Rahman, Mohammad, eds. (1991) Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. New York: Apex Press. 23 Cornwall, Andrea and Jewkes, Rachel (1995) “What is Participatory Action Research?” Social Science Med., vol. 41, no.12, pp. 1667-1676. 24 Baillie, Caroline. (2006) Engineering Within a Local and Global Society. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. 25 David Reiﬀ. (2002). A Bed for the Night, New York, Simon and Schuster. 26 Ramaswami, Anu, Julie B. Zimmerman and James R. Mihelcic. (2007) Integrating Development and Developing World Knowledge into Global Discussions and Strategies for Sustainability . 2 Economics and Governance,” Env. Science & Technology, vol. 41, pp. 3422-3430. 27 Downey, Gary Lee, Juan C. Lucena, Barbara M. Moskal, omas Bigley, Chris Hays, Brent K. Jesiek, Liam Kelly, Jane L. Lehr, Jonson Miller, Amy Nichols-Belo, Sharon Ruﬀ, and Rosamond Parkhurst. (2006) “e Globally Competent Engineer: Working Eﬀectively with People Who Deﬁne Problems Diﬀerently.” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 95, no. 2, pp.107-122. 28 Lucena, Juan, Jen Schneider and Jon Leydens,. (2010) Engineering and Sustainable Community Development. Morgan and Claypool Publishers, Caroline Baillie, Series Editor. 77 29 Greg Mortenson (2009) Stones into Schools Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. New York, Viking. 30 Paul Hawken. (2006) Blessed Unrest; How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No one Saw it Coming. New York, Viking, e Penguin Group. 31 Klein, Julie ompson (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, eory and Practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. 32 Pellmar, T; Eisenberg, L. (2000): Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral and Clinical Sciences. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 33 Illich, Ivan. (1967) “e Seamy Side of Charity”, America, vol. 116, no. 3 (January 21), pp. 88-91. 34 VanderSteen, Jonathan D.J. (2008) Humanitarian Engineering in the Engineering Curriculum. Ph.D. esis, Civil Engineering, Kingston Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University. 35 Esteva, Gustavo (2008) Personal Communication. 78 79 “Concernformanhimselfandhisfatemust alwaysformthechiefinterestofalltechnical endeavors.Neverforgetthisamidstallyour diagramsandequations.” — Albert Einstein Students in the ‘Entrepreneurship for the Public Good’ program at Berea College, Kentucky visit with entrepreneurs in Appalachia for their service learning projects. 80 Introduction Addressing society’s most intractable social problems takes perse- verance and commitment. Faculty from around the world have embraced the powerful pedagogy of service learning as a tool to engage students in ﬁnding solutions to some of society’s most pressing social problems. is chapter introduces the Social Entrepreneurship Model for engineering faculty to help students craft innovative solutions by building a sustainable business model that achieves social impact. ere is a strong movement among university students towards hu- manitarian eﬀorts to make an impact on the lives of others. ose cur- rently attending college - the Millennial generation (also nicknamed Generation G for Generosity) 1 - are inspired to combine their passion to do good in the world with their professional pursuits. In line with these trends, interest in social endeavors among engineers has grown rapidly dur- ing the last decade. Engineers Without Borders–USA has grown to over 12,000 members in about 8 years and boasts student chapters at 41 college and university campuses throughout the United States. Engineers for a Sustainable World, founded in 2002 by a Cornell University engineering student, has student chapters on 23 college and university campuses. We believe that one of the best ways to train engineers on how to achieve social impact is by teaching them about social entrepreneurship. Many social service organizations are addressing social problems the same Debbi Brock Anderson University Susan D. Steiner, PhD, CPA e University of Tampa Lois A. Jordan, PhD, PE e University of Tampa CHAPTER 4 UsingtheSocialEntrepreneurshipModelto TeachEngineeringStudentsHowtoCreate LastingSocialChange 81 way that they addressed them ten or twenty years ago. As the world’s most pressing problems continue, are we developing long term solutions to the problems or creating more dependence? Social entrepreneurship breaks the mold and encourages individuals to act diﬀerently, to embrace innovation and to attack the status quo. In this paper, we introduce the Social Entrepreneurship Model (SEM), which brings together the elements of social impact, innovative solutions, and sustainable business models to address society’s intractable problems. We then describe a number of education programs and co- curricular activities around the globe that take full advantage of the com- bination of engineering and social entrepreneurship perspectives to teach students how to tackle social change. We end with a discussion of the im- plications and recommendations for educators who wish to prepare their engineering students for the challenges of ﬁnding signiﬁcant, innovative, and lasting ways to solve long-standing social challenges. Social Entrepreneurship Model As in most disciplines, academics in social entrepreneurship have not embraced one definition of the field 2,3 . For the purposes of this ar- ticle, we define social entrepreneurship as “the creation of social impact by developing and implementing a sustainable business model which draws on innovative solutions that benefit the disadvantaged and, ul- timately, society at large” 4 . Our social entrepreneurship definition and model evolved from a content analysis of twelve definitions of social en- trepreneurship from some of the most cited researchers and organiza- tions in the field 5 . The three bolded phrases above are highlighted because they are the most common differences identified when com- paring social entrepreneurship to other organizational efforts. First, social entrepreneurship differs from traditional entrepreneurship be- cause of its primary focus on social impact and long-term social change rather than financial gain for its owners. Second, social entrepreneur- ship differs from other social efforts because of it strategic business- based approach to resource gathering, operations, and performance outcomes. Third, social entrepreneurship differs from traditional busi- ness models because of its focus on innovation, be it products, services, or processes. The Social Entrepreneurship Model is presented in Figure 4.1 and explained in more detail below. 82 Social Impact Social entrepreneurs, humanitarian engineers, and non-governmen- tal organizations (NGOs) have the same goal: solving social problems. Providing positive social impact that addresses community needs is at the heart of social entrepreneurship. is social aim is central and explicit, guided by the organization’s mission statement 6,7 . As part of this perspec- tive, social entrepreneurs assess and/or demonstrate their eﬀectiveness based on the triple bottom line: Proﬁt, People, and Planet. e triple bottom line takes into consideration not only the economic impact of de- cisions that companies make, but also the impact to the environment as well as to the people aﬀected 8 . In addition, social entrepreneurs reject the charity or philanthropy model. Instead, the empowerment model is embedded in how goods and services are created, paid for, and distributed. As a result, social entrepre- neurs often develop ﬁnancially sustainable and mutually beneﬁcial solu- tions to social problems through partnership with the beneﬁciaries 9,10,11 . An ideal model of the many aspects of social impact is Barefoot Col- lege. Barefoot College was built around the concept of the village as a self-reliant unit. It was founded in 1972 by Bunker Roy and a group of India’s top university students who saw the needs of India’s jobless rural youth. Barefoot College trains India’s poor to become “barefoot” doctors, teachers, engineers, and other technology driven experts so that they can, in turn, create a better living environment for others. For example, this organization has trained over 460 “barefoot” solar engineers, primarily il- FIGURE 4.1: SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MODEL literate women, who come from remote villages around the world. Dur- ing six months of training, they learn how to install and maintain solar technology for rural electriﬁcation programs. To date, these solar engi- neers have built and maintained systems that provide solar electricity to over twelve thousand households in India as well as six thousand house- holds in seventeen countries in Africa, Asia, and South America. Barefoot College graduates not only enhance the quality of life of their communi- ties, but also their own quality of life by earning a living wage, not the lower average market wage 12 . Another example of social impact is Ciudad Saludable (“healthy city”), which was founded in 2001 by Peruvian engineering student Al- bina Ruiz to address the environmental and human problems caused by uncollected garbage in Peru. e government-run service had been un- able to collect the fees needed to maintain the system’s infrastructure due in large part to customer dissatisfaction with the system’s poor perform- ance. Ruiz broke this negative cycle by developing local citizens into suc- cessful “micro-entrepreneurs” who now provide private garbage collection to replace the ineﬀective government-run service. Ciudad Saludable not only provides a solution to the health and environmental problems caused by the uncollected waste, but it also provides self-employment opportu- nities to local residents in areas with high levels of unemployment. e thirteen micro-enterprises created by Ciudad Saludable permanently em- ploy over 150 people and beneﬁt over three million inhabitants in Peru 13 . In addition, some of Ciudad Saludable’s micro-entrepreneurs have gone on to build other proﬁtable businesses producing organic fertilizer from the waste collected. Ruiz’s work has been so successful that she has trained over 120 municipal authorities in recycling techniques and provided jobs for 3,000 recyclers in Peru and Bolivia 14 . Innovative Solutions Innovation is at the soul of entrepreneurship, and fostering inno- vation in social entrepreneurship is no diﬀerent 15,16,17,18 . Schumpeter’s seminal work contributed to the ﬁeld by explicating how the entrepreneur innovates and uses “creative destruction” for economic growth 19 . In a sim- ilar vein, social entrepreneurs create “large scale change through pattern breaking ideas” 20 . As Bill Drayton, founder and CEO of Ashoka, the largest supporter of social entrepreneurs in the world noted, “Social en- trepreneurs are not content just to give a ﬁsh or teach how to ﬁsh. ey 83 will not rest until they have revolutionized the ﬁshing industry” 21 . Inno- vations can come in a variety of forms – not just in terms of technologies that create new products and services, but in terms of the ways that the organization operates and delivers value to its constituencies. One innovation success story is KickStart (formally Approtec), which was launched in 1991 with the sole mission to create appropriate technologies to end poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. e technologies used include a sunﬂower seed smasher to create cooking oil, a brick making machine and an irrigation pump that runs on human power. e pump, its most successful technology to date, doubles the yield of a farmer’s crop and sells for as little as $78. e eﬀorts of the social entrepreneurs who founded KickStart, Martin Fisher and Nick Moon, have resulted in 95,000 successful new businesses in Africa, which have lifted more than 473,000 people out of poverty 22 . In Kenya alone, KickStart has generated revenues equivalent to 0.6% of this country’s GDP 23 . Another example of the successful use of innovation is GlobalRe- solve, founded in 2006 by Arizona State University Polytechnic professors Mark Henderson, Brad Rogers, David Jacobson and Rajiv Sinha. It mis- sion is to build sustainable business ventures in the villages of developing countries that address the problems faced by the people of these villages. In a 2008 project, GlobalResolve developed a clean-burning stove fueled by corn that not only prevents the respiratory health and pollution issues associated with previously used wood and charcoal stoves, but also provides the residents of rural African villages with the opportunity to manufacture and sell both the stoves and the corn-based fuel to surrounding villages 24 . 84 FIGURE 4.2 KICKSTART WATER PUMP Sustainable Business Model Even the most socially redeeming and potentially proﬁtable inno- vative concept or product may not lead to successful adoption and a sus- tainable organizational venture. It is critical that all the elements of the product or service launch as well as its on-going operations be thought through in a coherent, integrated fashion. An eﬀective business model, which presents the logic of the organization and the ways it creates value for its stakeholders, is therefore key to a venture’s success 25 . Social entrepreneurs strive to create sustainable business models that avoid reliance on grants and donations to survive 26,27 . Many also see business models as opportunities to create new markets to serve the “bot- tom of the pyramid” – viz., poorest socio-economic groups 28,29,30 . In ad- dition, new technologies and innovations often require the foresight and discipline that a well-articulated business model provides in order to achieve successful results 31 . Moreover, a formal, documented business model acts as a blueprint, which enhances the ability of a social enterprise’s operations to be successfully expanded and replicated 32 . For example, Kiva.org was built on the microﬁnance model ad- vanced by Nobel Prize winner Mohammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank. Microﬁnance entails providing very small, non-collateralized busi- ness loans to those in poverty to start or expand very small businesses. e goal of microﬁnance is to spur self-suﬃciency through self-employment. Stanford graduates Matt Flannery and Premal Shah took the model to the next level by utilizing the Internet to facilitate person-to-person microﬁ- nancing. Speciﬁcally, Kiva fosters the matching of entrepreneurs in devel- oping economies with individual lenders across the globe. ese lenders may lend as little as $25 (and would then be grouped with other lenders interested in the same project). According to Kiva.org, a loan is made about every 30 seconds, the average loan amount is approximately $400, it takes less than one week to fund a loan, and approximately 98% of all loans are repaid. As of May 2010, over 350,000 entrepreneurs among the poorest of the poor have been helped through small loans totaling over $139 million dollars 33 . Although it is not a high tech company in the tra- ditional sense, Kiva exists solely because of advances in information tech- nology and the Internet, and it continues to expand accordingly. Another example of the power of a business model is Aravind Eye Hospital, which was launched by Dr. G. Venkataswamy to provide 85 cataract surgeries to the poor in India to avoid needless blindness. His business model was “to mass-market cataract surgery the way hamburgers and pizzas are marketed by McDonald’s and Pizza Hut” 34 . Innovative process eﬃciencies, such as using webcams to evaluate potential patients in remote villages, the use of state-of-the-art equipment and assembly- line processes in the operating room, and the self-manufacture of all ma- terials needed for eye care and surgery, allow the organization to see more than 2.5 million patients and conduct an average of 300,000 surgeries per year while providing ﬁrst rate eye care services at aﬀordable costs. Poor patients (currently 70% of all patients) do not have to pay for their procedures. System eﬃciencies allow the fees from the paying minority of patients to be able to support the cost of free medical care for those who cannot pay 35 . Social Entrepreneurship and Engineering Education Social entrepreneurship is a nascent area in formal engineering ed- ucation. ere are a small but growing number of universities across the world creating social entrepreneurship courses and programs tailored to engineering students. For example, the Department of Social Engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology recently began oﬀering a graduate program in So- cial Entrepreneurship. Its stated goal is to “train future Social Entrepre- neurs who will be able to solve various social problems by creating sustainable and innovative systems with new ideas, thus making the world a better place” 36 . Stanford University formed the Department of Man- agement Science and Engineering with the goal of applying engineering analysis to social problems while also producing graduates with the skills needed to become business leaders. e Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship program at Penn State seeks “the convergence of the tripartite university missions of teaching, research and outreach to ed- ucate globally-engaged social problem solvers and create sustainable value for developing communities, while generating and disseminating knowl- edge and lessons learned” 37 . In addition to courses and honor thesis op- portunities, this program oﬀers an Engineering and Community Engagement Certiﬁcate. Teaching students how to create social entrepreneurial ventures is not always part of a degree program. One of the more popular co-curric- ular activities is business plan competitions. ere are over two dozen 86 student competitions in social entrepreneurship across the globe 38 . A small number of competitions, such as the National Idea to Product (I2P) Competition for Social Entrepreneurship, accept only technology-focused projects. Most competitions are similar to the Global Social Entrepre- neurship Competition (GSEC) hosted by the University of Washington; they are open to students university-wide. Since GSEC’s inception, over 300 students from more than 25 countries have participated in the com- petition. GSEC fosters interdisciplinary collaboration across academic in- stitutions and ﬁelds of study (e.g., business, engineering, health sciences, international studies, law and public administration). ere are also highly competitive social entrepreneurship intern- ships and fellowships. For example, the Global Center for Social Entre- preneurship, which was established in the School of International Studies at the University of the Paciﬁc, oﬀers all its students internships with frontline social entrepreneurship organizations domestically and interna- tionally as well as incubator apprenticeships. Engineers for Social Impact (E4SI) is a fellowship program that provides top engineering students with the opportunity to work with “social enterprises driving market- based solutions to development in India. It serves a dual need: matching talented Indian students with worthy social enterprises and increasing awareness of for-proﬁt approaches to development” 39 . Student-run organizations that promote social entrepreneurship ed- ucation and projects are gaining prominence on college campuses. Engi- neers without Borders (EWB) and Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW), which were mentioned earlier, are two social mission organiza- tions designed speciﬁcally for engineers that have student chapters at 64 colleges and universities. Students in these organizations not only are ex- posed to the concept of social entrepreneurship in symposia and confer- ences, but typically undertake community projects. ere are also college initiatives, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloane Entrepreneurs for International Development (SEID). is stu- dent-run organization “seeks to drive sustainable global development through entrepreneurship, by fostering productive collaborations between students and new ventures in emerging markets and by raising awareness of current challenges and success models” 40 . ese co-curricular activities not only expose engineering students to social entrepreneurship, but they have led to viable social enterprises. For example, Husk Power Systems (HPS), which was founded by three 87 88 University of Virginia students — Manoj Sinha Charles Ransler, and Gyanesh Pandey — has grown exponential since its inception in 2008. e students’ business model was to generate reliable power to the rural areas of Bihar, India's poorest state, by designing, building and operation oﬀ-grid 35-100 kW mini-power plants that convert rice husks, the re- newable waste product of rice milling, into electricity. ese students re- ceived $50,000 in seed money for their venture after winning the Dell Social Innovation Competition hosted by the University of Texas. As of May 2010, HPS provides power to more than 100,000 people in over 90 rural Indian villages in India’s indigent “Rice Belt.” HPS also adds to the triple bottom line by employing local residents and by selling silica, the by-product when rice husks are burned, to concrete manufacturers 41,42 . Implications Engineers are naturally skilled at innovation. is quality, combined with the fact that engineering curricula typically provide all the necessary technical skills, means that engineers will generally be well prepared for addressing the innovation aspects of our Social Entrepreneurship Model. Unfortunately, they are much less adept at the critical business aspects of the model. Employers believe that non-engineering competencies, such as economics and management, are not adequately covered in engineering education 43 . Research suggests that engineering education would be en- hanced by the addition of courses in accounting, ﬁnance, marketing, or- ganizational behavior, commercialization of technology, and strategy 44 . e typical engineering curriculum is focused on mathematics and sci- ences, with as much as ﬁfty percent of the courses in the ﬁeld of engi- neering. Even if a student wished to take elective course work beyond general baccalaureate requirements, most engineering curricula leave no time to do so. Furthermore, interdisciplinary degrees are not valued by most universities 45 . What happens when engineers take academic courses in entrepre- neurship or social entrepreneurship? Studies have found a signiﬁcant pos- itive relationship between entrepreneurship education and the tendency to start new business ventures. Social entrepreneurship programs are a source of “trigger-events” that ultimately raise the students’ entrepreneur- ial attitudes and intentions 46 . One study found that 40% of engineering students who receive education in entrepreneurship eventually start their own businesses 47 . Other research has concluded that entrepreneurship ed- ucation can have tangible outcomes and that “entrepreneurship is not about who the entrepreneur is but what the entrepreneur does” 48 . What should this mean for educators? First, we should make the resources that we already have more readily available to engineering stu- dents. Courses in the necessary business and entrepreneurship topics cur- rently are being taught in business schools, so we should encourage synergies between engineering and business students in the same class- room as well as have engineering and business faculty co-teach courses. Research has found that while both groups had high creative potential, they have divergent creative styles 49 . Engineering students tend to chan- nel their creativity toward practical, incremental problem solving, whereas business students tend to focus on the radically new and are generally more market-oriented. Hence, a shared learning experience will beneﬁt both engineering and business students through the blending of their re- spective strengths and the opportunity to learn from one another by see- ing things from a diﬀerent perspective. Second, we should make it easier for engineering students to learn about and enroll in social entrepreneurship courses. e courses should be cross-referenced with engineering course numbers and listed in engi- neering course oﬀerings. Prerequisites should be appropriately set so that engineering students are not prohibited from taking them due to their lack of other business coursework. Because the typical engineering cur- ricula is already very full, we should also consider ways to merge business and entrepreneurship courses into engineering programs as substitutes for other courses. Another option would be to advocate multi-disciplinary degrees in business and engineering so that engineering students add the appropriate business courses to their academic schedule from the start. ird, we should ﬁnd ways to introduce the concept of social en- trepreneurship into courses throughout the engineering curriculum where appropriate, rather than continue to oﬀer it as a “stand alone” course 50 . In this way, engineering students will be more apt to consider social en- trepreneurship as a routine engineering endeavor as well as be more apt to see its application in numerous situations. Finally, we should continue to expand the availability of hands-on social entrepreneurship learning opportunities for engineers through in- ternships and/or projects, with emphasis on cross-functional team expe- riences with business students. Engineers tend to learn more easily by doing. Similarly, much entrepreneurship knowledge is diﬃcult to teach 89 in the traditional classroom and is best served by experiential learning 51,52 . By sharing resources with organizations such as Teach a Man to Fish, En- gineers without Borders (EWB), National Collegiate Inventors and In- novators Alliance (NCIIA), and Engineers for Social Impact (E4SI), we can ensure that our Generation G students have access not only to op- portunities for hands-on learning, but also to the tools and resources needed to achieve sustainable social impact. Conclusion Social entrepreneurship diﬀers from other social and organizational eﬀorts because it uses technology and innovation to address societal chal- lenges by creating long term, self-suﬃcient business enterprises. In this regard, social entrepreneurship is the only truly “sustainable” model of humanitarianism in place today, combining the best elements of a busi- ness perspective and humanitarian engineering. Engineers, equipped with this added knowledge, can have an even greater ability to develop and im- plement lasting solutions to the world’s most intractable social problems than they have today. 90 REFERENCES 1 trendwatching.com, “Generation G,” February 2009, http:/trendwatching.com/trends/generationg/ (accessed May 4, 2010). 2 Johanna Mair, Ignasi Martí, “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction and Delight,” Journal of World Business 41, no. 1 (2006), 36-44. 3 Shaker A. Zahra, Eric Gedajlovic, Donald O. Neubaum, Joel M. Shulman, “A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges,” Journal of Business Venturing 24, no. 5 (2009), 519-532. 4 Debbi D. Brock, Susan D. Steiner, “e Social Entrepreneurship Model: Building Sustainable Innovations to Achieve Social Impact,” (paper, presented at ird Research Colloquium in Social Entrepreneurship, Skoll Centre, Oxford University, June 22, 2010). 5 Debbi D. Brock, Susan D. Steiner, “Social Entrepreneurship Education: Is It Achieving the Desired Aims?” 2008 USASBE Proceedings, (San Antonio, TX: US Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, January 2008), 1133-1152. 6 Gregory J. Dees, e Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, Stanford University: Kauﬀman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, www.caseatduke.org/docu- ments/dees_sedef.pdf (accessed May 31, 2010). 7 Sutia Kim Alter, “Social Enterprise Models and their Mission and Money Relationships,” in Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, ed. Alex Nicholls (Oxford University Press, 2006), 205-232. 8 John Elkington, “Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development,” California Management Review 36, no. 2 (1994), 90–100. 9 Sharon H. Alvord, David L. Brown Christine Letts, “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40, no. 3, (2004), 260–282. 10 Helen Haugh, “Community-Led Social Venture Creation,” Entrepreneurship: eory and Practice 31 no. 2 (2007), 161–182. 11 Ana Maria Peredo, James J. Chrisman, “Toward a eory of Community-Based Enterprise,” Academy of Management Review 31, no. 2 (2006), 309–328. 12 Roy Bunker, “Empowering the Rural Poor to Develop emselves: e Barefoot Approach, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 3, no. 2 (2008), 67-93. 13 PBS, e New Heroes: Albina Ruiz, www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/meet/ruiz.html (accessed May 20, 2010). 14 Skoll Foundation, www.skollfoundation.org/grantees/a-e.asp (accessed May 24, 2010). 15 James Austin, Howard Stephenson, Jane Wei-Skillen, J. (2006), “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Diﬀerent, or Both?” Entrepreneurship: eory and Practice 30, no. 1 (2006), 1-22. 91 92 16 Alvord, Brown and Letts, “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation,” 260–282. 17 Gregory J. Dees, e Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. 18 Roger L. Martin, Sally Osberg, “Social Entrepreneurship: e Case for Deﬁnition,” Stanford Social Innovation Review 5, no. 2 (2007), 28-39. 19 Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1942). 20 Paul C. Light, e Search for Social Entrepreneurship, (Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution Press, 2008). 21 Drayton, William, “Everyone a Changemaker: Social Entrepreneurship’s Ultimate Goal,” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1, no. 1 (2006), 80-96. 22 Kickstart, www.kickstart.org, (accessed on May 24, 2010). 23 New Proﬁt Inc., About Kickstart. www.newproﬁt.com/cgi-bin/iowa/do/invest/ 15.html (accessed on May 24, 2010). 24 W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, “Social Entrepreneurs Develop Cleaner Alternative to African Wood-Burning Stoves” Knowledge@W.P. Carey, July 16, 2008, http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/ article.cfm?articleid=1627 (accessed on May 28, 2010). 25 Ramon Casadesus-Masanell, Joan Enric Ricart. “From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics,” Long Range Planning 43, no. 2-3 (2010), 195-215. 26 Nicolas M. Dahan, Jonathan P. Doh, Jennifer Oetzel, Michael Yaziji, “Corporate- NGO Collaboration: Co-creating New Business Models for Developing Markets,” Long Range Planning 43, no. 2-3 (2010), 326-342. 27 James D. ompson, Ian C. MacMillan, “Business Models: Creating New Markets and Societal Wealth,” Long Range Planning 43, no. 2-3 (2010), 291-307. 28 C. K. Prahalad, e Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty rough Proﬁts, (Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Publishing, 2004). 29 James D. ompson, Ian C. MacMillan, “Business Models: Creating New Markets and Societal Wealth,” Long Range Planning 43, no. 2-3 (2010), 291-307. 30 Charles Wankel (ed.), Alleviating Poverty through Business Strategy, (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 31 Henry Chesbrough, Richard S. Rosenbloom, “e Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's Technology Spin-Oﬀ Companies,” Industrial and Corporate Change 11, no.3 (2002), 529-555. 32 Debbi D. Brock, Susan D. Steiner, “Scalability: A Critical Yet Ignored Element in Social Entrepreneurship Preparation. (paper presented at the Second Research Colloquium on Social Entrepreneurship. Raleigh-Durham, NC, June 26, 2009). 33 Kiva, www.kiva.org/ (accessed May 30, 2010). 34 G. Sankaranarayanan – Chennai, “e Man and Vision Behind Aravind Eye Hospital,” Express Healthcare Management, September 1-15, 2003. 35 Aravind Eye Care System, www.aravind.org, (accessed on May 25, 2010). 36 Tokyo Institute of Technology, Dept of Social Engineering, Social Entrepreneurship Program, www.soc.titech.ac.jp/major/npm_new/ npm_e_080116.htm (accessed May 20, 2010). 37 Pennsylvania State, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, www.engr.psu.edu/hese (accessed May 20, 2010). 38 Debbi D. Brock, Ashoka’s Global Academy for Social Entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurship Teaching Resources Handbook., March 2008, www.universitynetwork.org/handbook, (accessed February 12, 2010). 39 Engineers for Social Impact (E4SI), www.e4si.org/portal/fellowship (accessed May 20, 2010). 40 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Student Entrepreneurs for International Development (SEID), http://mit.edu/org/s/seid (accessed May 20, 2010 41 Andrew C. Revkin, “Husk Power for India,” New York Times, December 24, 2008. 42 Husk Power Systems, www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Husk-Power-Sys- tems/34694426057 (accessed on May 30, 2010). 43 Monica Edwards, Luis M. Sanchez-Ruiz, Edmundo Tovar-Caro, Enrigue Ballester- Sarrias, “Engineering Students’ Perceptions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competences,” (paper, presented at 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX, October 19, 2009). 44 Andres C. Salazar, “Supplementing Engineering Education with Business Training,” in Proceedings of Teaching Entrepreneurship to Engineering Students Conference, edited by Eleanor Baum and Carl McHargue (Monterrey, CA: Engineering Conferences International Symposium Series, January 2003), 237-241. 45 Salazar, “Supplementing Engineering Education with Business Training,” 237-241. 46 Souitaris, Stefania Zerbinati, Andreas Al-Laham “Do Entrepreneurship Programmes Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? e Eﬀect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources.” Journal of Business Venturing 22, no. 4 (2007), 566-591. 47 Teresa V. Menzies, Entrepreneurship and the Canadian Universities: A Report of a National Study of Entrepreneurship Education (St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada: Brock University, 2004). 48 Dawn R. DeTienne, Gaylen N. Chandler, “Opportunity Identiﬁcation and Its Role in the Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test” Academy of Management Learning and Education 3, no. 3 (2004), 254. 49 Henrik Berglund, Karl Wennberg, “Creativity Among Entrepreneurship Students: Comparing Engineering and Business Education,” International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning (IJCEEL) 16, no. 5 (2006), 366-379. 93 50 Paul Tracey, Nelson Phillips, “e Distinctive Challenge of Educating Social Entrepreneurs: A Postscript and Rejoinder to the Special Issue on Entrepreneurship Education,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 6, no. 2 (2007), 264-271. 51 Tracey and Phillips, “e Distinctive Challenge of Educating Social Entrepreneurs,” 264-271. 52 Magnus Aronsson,, “Education Matters – But Does Entrepreneurship Education? An Interview with David Birch.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 3, no. 3 (2004), 289-292. 94 95 “Youseethings,andyousay:‘Why?’ ButIdreamthingsthatneverwere, andIsay‘Whynot?’” — George Bernard Shaw Instead of attempting to re-engineer products orig- inally designed for wealthier markets, Frugal Engi- neering targets development of products that begin with the BOP population as the primary target customer. BOP customers have unique needs that must drive the product innovation process. 96 Introduction Frugal Engineering is a concept that has emerged in the last few years to describe how the product/service (hereafter, product) develop- ment process must be completely rethought and rebuilt in order to design, develop and deliver innovative solutions to customers at the Base-of-the- Pyramid (BOP) 1 . Instead of attempting to re-engineer products originally designed for wealthier markets, Frugal Engineering targets development of products that begin with the BOP population as the primary target customer. BOP customers have unique needs that must drive the product innovation process. Frugal Engineering can be thought of as engineering under con- straints dictated by these needs, not the least of which is “extreme afford- ability,” the requirement that products be affordable for customers earning a dollar or two a day. Product purchases must also occur within the cash flows of those customers, who typically have seasonal, uneven cash flows, but who are also willing to save for purchases and/or finance them through various forms of microfinance. Dan O’Neill ASU Polytechnic, Arizona State University John Takamura, PhD Arizona State University Nalini Chhetri, PhD Arizona State University Mark Henderson, PhD ASU Polytechnic Bradley Rogers, PhD ASU Polytechnic CHAPTER 5 FrugalInnovation Add to extreme affordability the fact that BOP products often have to operate in extreme conditions with little maintenance, waste or ineffi- ciency, and must be serviceable in a manner that is as equally affordable as the original price. Meanwhile, product developers have realized that BOP customers have the same expectations of quality and desirability that customers have in all markets. In sum, engineers must design and build high quality, feature-ap- propriate technologies and products that are affordable, require low main- tenance, reduce waste and inefficiency, are designed with the socio- ecological context of the customer in mind, and can be purchased by the customer within the context of their income and cash flow situation. These constraints lead to a complete rethinking of the engineering processes used to develop BOP products. This may result in a rethinking of design processes for the developed world as well. Instead of features being engineered out of products originally tar- geted at higher priced markets, Frugal Engineering begins with a clean sheet and targets high quality, durable, affordable products with just the right need-feature-benefit configuration required by the BOP customer. Products must generate a significant return for the customer. For in- stance, they need to reduce labor and land requirements in agricultural economies. Because they are low price and low margin, products must employ few assets, which, paradoxically, can result in a high return on eq- uity for the investor 2 . The result is a requirement that engineers developing BOP products have a deep understanding of the unique requirements of the BOP cus- tomer, and that they work to an engineering process that is qualitatively different than that employed for developing most products today. In prac- tice, this means that product development teams must evolve and embrace interdisciplinary team structures that include members who are expert in the needs of people living at the BOP, working side-by-side with engi- neers, manufacturers, designers and business members schooled in ways of doing business in specific cultural settings. 97 Frugal Innovation At GlobalResolve we are codifying such a process of product devel- opment so that we can teach to and learn with students from a wide va- riety of disciplines. GlobalResolve is a unit at the College of Technology Innovation on the Arizona State University Polytechnic campus. It is a social entrepreneurship concentration in the Technology Entrepreneur- ship and Management program. GlobalResolve develops products and services for BOP consumers by engaging students in a variety of experi- ential, problem-based engineering and social entrepreneurship courses, in which faculty and students collaborate with BOP customers and part- ner universities, NGOs and governments in Africa, Asia and Latin Amer- ica, as well as poor communities in the U.S. In developing the GlobalResolve Methodology, we realized that Fru- gal Engineering was not quite the right paradigm to use. GlobalResolve faculty who have participated in the development and delivery of the cur- ricula have come from a variety of disciplines, including International Development, Global Studies, Science-Technology Policy, Sustainability, Anthropology, Design, Engineering and Business. Like many of our co- horts around the nation who are building similar humanitarian engineer- ing and social entrepreneurship programs, we have come to recognize the intensely multi- or trans-disciplinary nature of the BOP product devel- opment process and have developed our methodology with that nature in mind. The process is more aptly called Frugal Innovation, a term that has emerged even more recently than Frugal Engineering 3 . Frugal Innovation is a more comprehensive term embracing all those disciplines that must be brought to the table to build future products. Frugal Innovation must not only help lift billions out of poverty, but must aid in the “sustainability transition” preserving our life support systems along the way. This is nothing less than innovating innovation. We are one of many groups around the world re-imagining the process by which we think about building future products. One way to explore the new thinking process of Frugal Innovation is to consider the many topics to which it is closely related. 98 Strong Sustainability Frugal Innovation can be seen as an implementation of Strong Sus- tainability 4 . One definition of frugality is “characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources.” Frugality is conservation oriented, which is precisely what sustainability addresses: saving something for fu- ture generations. Sustainability is a broad concept with many definitions and interpretations. The most common is the Brundtland definition: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs” 5 . A perhaps more useful concept is that of a sustainability transition in which poverty, hunger and disease are systematically reduced, while preserving the life support processes of the planet 6 . In any case, sustainability has been interpreted in many ways. Sus- tainability raises the question(s) “sustain what for whom for how long to what end?” Among other things sustainability suggests the Precautionary Principle, which might translate to “if you don’t understand the unin- tended consequences of your action, don’t take it.” Sustainability calls for mindful action, in which a wide range of consequences is thoroughly con- sidered. Understanding unintended consequences in engineering has al- ways been critical, important and difficult. It is more so with sustainability added as a design constraint. One perspective of sustainability is the “capitals” perspective. While there are a variety of capital taxonomies, capital stocks typically include natural, human, social, cultural, physical and financial capital. From a capitals perspective, there are different approaches to sustainability. Weak sustainability suggests that we can trade one capital stock for another, as long as overall capital stocks are preserved, thus, ensuring that overall stan- dards of living and human well-being are maintained. For instance, we can turn natural capital into financial capital, and use that financial capital in new ways to meet our future needs. Strong sustainability takes the position that specific capital stocks are not substitutable. For instance, once a species is lost it can never really be replaced. Or, when we run out of a mineral resource, it is gone forever. While certainly debatable, Frugal Innovation seems oriented towards con- 99 servation. Frugal Innovation might embrace the Precautionary Principle as an element of the innovation process, and seek to preserve critical cap- ital stocks. Doing so requires recognition that sustainability is about maintaining the “web of life,” which by definition requires a systems ap- proach in which the details of engineering and innovation processes are viewed in terms of their broader impact. That is, the system is King. Systems Thinking Frugal Innovation is a systems thinking approach to addressing the challenges of poverty, disease, gender issues and environmental degrada- tion faced by BOP populations and captured in the Millennium Devel- opment Goals adopted by the United Nations. Addressing these challenges is not “merely” a matter of finding innovative ways to lift bil- lions out of poverty, though that is the first and foremost goal. We assume as people emerge from poverty that many of the ills of the world will be addressed. More broadly, this approach allows us to rethink problems of the BOP population in the overall context of the world they inhabit, in- cluding addressing the socio-ecological processes that link these challenges that are unique to them. The world must achieve the daunting goal of poverty alleviation in a manner that is environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable. The emerging discipline of sustainability refers to these types of challenges as “wicked problems” that have no easy solution 7 . The demand placed on the Frugal Engineer, or more appropriately, the Frugal Innovation Team (FIT), is one of systems thinking, embedded within the framework of Sustainability Science and Studies. The demands of sustainability require that the FIT approaches problems from a “system of interest” perspective. Innovation must occur within a given socio-ecological system, generally understood to be a complex adaptive system 8,9,10 . At GlobalResolve we call these CASES, for Complex Adaptive Socio-Ecological Systems. This means that the FIT must be introduced to and employ some cocktail of concepts, disciplines, methodologies, methods, tools and tech- niques that addresses systems thinking, systems dynamics, complexity, complex adaptive systems, and systems engineering. The issues include being able to understand the research being produced by various sustain- 100 101 ability disciplines, model the CASES of interest, and use those new un- derstandings and models in the innovation-entrepreneurship processes that the FIT commands. Because of the complexity of BOP challenges, Frugal Innovation is by its very nature a highly multi- or trans-disciplinary approach. Product development is set within a CASES context. It requires a wide variety of knowledge, skills and, thus, disciplines, to address such problems in a “people, planet and profit” triple-bottom line manner. A critical part of the process is thinking about impacts and trade-offs. Engineering is fun- damentally a process of designing to trade-offs. Along with anticipating unintended consequences, Frugal Innovation takes trade-off thinking to a systems level. System Innovation Thus, Frugal Innovation requires System Innovation. Our focus as product developers is usually to perceive the product in relationship to the customer. However, in order to build products that are more broadly sustainable, we must learn to innovate at the system level. We must con- sider the customer-product in relationship to the whole system. This has been seen and experienced in engineering service learning projects for many years. We might resolve a water problem, while creating the unin- tended consequence of an energy issue, or perhaps even worse, a serious cultural problem. In this way, Frugal Innovation is the next generation of Systems En- gineering (SE) that takes into account the impacts of innovation on the ground that is nested within the concept of diverse needs of a global pop- ulation. SE has come and gone as a discipline taught in engineering schools in the U.S. For the last several years, disciplinary silos have dom- inated the landscape in schools of engineering. A few truly outstanding SE programs exist. Even these often consider multi-disciplinary teams to be comprised only of engineers from a variety of engineering disciplines. But, more and more programs are combining the skills of design, engi- neering and business, the cumulative effect of which will lead to a higher likelihood of sustainability. Because of the trans-disciplinary nature of innovation at the BOP, Frugal Innovation must take this process to the 102 next level by embracing specialists from even more disciplines that are not normally part of the product development/business cycle. We’ve seen a number of “stealth mode” programs in universities around the nation begin to include team members from other disciplines, such as anthropologists, ecologists, biologists, health professionals, technical writers and humanists of a variety of stripes. Many of these programs are being developed in response to the complexity of BOP innovations. Crazy faculty go beyond job requirements to transform service learning projects into humanitarian engineering/social entrepreneurship ventures by acting as CEO’s of start-up companies. They coordinate the activities of many faculty and students in multiple courses over multiple years, while simultaneously employing university-based technology transfer and venture acceleration processes. In many ways, these ventures represent the most sophisticated systems engineering education being done in uni- versities today. These programs need to be codified and supported by en- gineering schools. To do so requires a next generation of innovation process thinking. Innovation System Frugal Innovation is an Innovation System. There are many approaches to systems engineering. Frugal Innovation must take the best of these ap- proaches and add elements of international development, sustainability sciences, design and business to the innovation process. The GlobalRe- solve Methodology, referred to earlier, (Figure 1) is our attempt to do just that. Each of the large circles represents a major process while the small circles and bullet lists represent the system component processes and areas of expertise. As a team, we realized that BOP product development within a sustainability system innovation context required a highly sys- tematic, though flexible, approach. We are attempting to take the best of our multi-disciplinary experiences and combine them in a repeatable, systematic, iterative process for BOP product development. While the Innovation System must incorporate many disciplines, design, engineer- ing and business remain as core competencies. 103 FIGURE 5.1 THE GLOBALRESOLVE METHODOLOGY Design Innovation Frugal Innovation is Frugal Design, which takes User-Centered De- sign as a basic principle, but extends it to Systems-Centered Design that takes into account the needs of the Earth, as much as the needs of the customer. This requires Design Innovation. State-of-the-art design for the BOP requires a rethinking on ‘design thinking.’ In order to design products with true value for the BOP, innovators need to understand the importance of community collaboration and must embrace this funda- mental approach to product development. The transition from User- Centered design to Human-Centered design to Earth-Centered will also require another transition to Culture-Centered design, whereby special emphasis on the cultural integration of artifacts (devices), technologies (both existing and emerging), and their interaction in terms of cultural practices will be the focus of systematic problem solving. ‘Radical changes’ or innovation in the way products and services are designed, priced and delivered to the BOP must be done in order for success 11 . At its best, the new design process is characterized by co-creative collaboration with communities not just as consumers or users of prod- ucts, but also as the producers and manufacturers of them 12 . Frugal Engineering Frugal Innovation includes that with which we began: Frugal En- gineering. Engineering is solving technological problems under con- straints, so adding a “frugality” constraint makes sense and, in fact, creates products that fit the BOP challenge set. The term Concurrent Engineer- ing (CE), which was popular during the 1990s, consisted of a multi-dis- ciplinary team working together to solve engineering problems. Frugal Engineering is the modern-day version of CE applied to BOP problems and including all of the disciplines listed in Figure 1. Just as Design In- novation includes cultural integration, Frugal Engineering adds technol- ogy and the very important consideration of unintended consequences that appear because of cultural, economic and physical changes resulting from introducing new products into BOP communities. Unintended consequences are best mitigated through disciplinary diversity. As an example, consider a project GlobalResolve that undertook to introduce smokeless cooking fuel to communities in Ghana. This case 104 study is discussed further later in the paper. Engineering experts handled the design, fabrication and assembly of the ethanol still and the stoves, but two unanticipated and unintended consequences emphasized the ne- cessity of a diverse team. First, with the removal smoke, mosquitoes and other insects return to the kitchen and there is a risk of increased malaria. Second, because the women buy cooking fuel, they no longer have to spend hours a day collecting wood. However, in some communities that collecting time was spent by groups of women hunting for wood together means social time as well. They spend this time to discuss personal and family issues, solve community problems and, in general, support each other. It was obvious after recognizing these consequences resulting from making a new fuel available, that experts are now required in medicine, etymology and culture. Value Network Assembly for Impact at Scale From a business perspective, Frugal Innovation is about engaging BOP populations as consumers and suppliers in new value adding busi- nesses that can achieve impact at scale. Polack 11 famously suggests to work only on innovations that will affect at least a million people. While we don’t believe that literally, since many great engineering service learning projects have been done that affect a single village, perhaps even a single family, his point is well taken: when possible, seek to do innovation work that results in the highest impact on the most people. In Frugal Innova- tion, the target business model and value network themselves become de- sign and engineering requirements/constraints. The Monitor Group 13 identified nine archetypes of business models that seem to be working in BOP contexts. Often the challenge is not only to envision, design, engineer and develop the product. Additionally, the team might need to create the business model, and corresponding value network, from whole cloth, a costly and risky proposition. Often the manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sales infrastructures are sim- ply not in place to deliver the product to the intended customer, or to engage the BOP person as a supplier. This is one reason why BOP busi- ness models often require many years to take hold and scale. In other cases, some portion of the value network must be created from scratch, but other portions can be superimposed on an existing network, such as 105 a distribution network consisting of thousands of small vendors, or the client network of an institution offering microfinance. Microfinance is often a critical element of an overall financial and investment strategy for BOP venture creation. Monitor Institute (2009) characterized the new investment segment as Impact Investing, in which participants invest first and foremost in ventures that can have a social impact at scale. Some investors are “return first” investors that seek a mar- ket rate of return. Others are “impact first” investors that are willing to forgo higher returns in favor of higher impact, though they typically seek recovery of principal. The most recent trend is “yen-yang” investments in which a variety of impact investors take different parts of an investment that most closely meet their investment profile, in order to fully finance the product development, creation of the business model and assembly of the value network. For U.S.-based universities, it is indispensable that teams work with in-country, on-the-ground resources that are knowledgeable in the busi- ness ways of the local culture, in order to bring the whole picture together. In one of our first projects we worked through this entire process. To de- velop the gel-fuel clean cook stove in Ghana, GlobalResolve collaborated with two Ghanaian universities and a Ghanaian NGO. Together we iden- tified an initial target market that was likely to buy the product/service, and found an ideal early adopter customer. We selected an agricultural input for ethanol production, figured out how to best gel the ethanol in local conditions, prototyped several versions of a stove that was efficient enough and would meet the demanding cooking needs of the customer, transferred the design to a local manufacturer who further refined it, pro- duced several test runs of gel fuel, built multiple versions of the stove and executed several cooking tests. To scale the business the supply chain must be optimized to the lowest cost and financing/investment sought for its expansion 14 . When fully in place across Ghana, the value network will potentially consist of tens of thousands of customers, dozens of stove and gel fuel manufacturers, hundreds of agricultural input suppliers and many, many distributors, all working to deliver an integrated whole product- service/benefit bundle co-created among several players specifically for Ghana, and branded for that context. 106 Brand Innovation for the BOP Problem solving for the BOP does not end when the product has been designed and developed, but actually extends far down the process to the branding of the product for consumption by the BOP customer/supplier. Regarding how enterprises can successfully operate at the BOP Polak states that ‘…they will need to make radical changes in how they design, price, and deliver products and services to poor people 11 (p. 44).’ Any product intended for the BOP will require these ‘radical changes’ not only in the way enterprises design their products but how they brand them as well. It is safe to assume that many of the traditional brand marketing methods used for the middle to top portion of the eco- nomic pyramid will not work at the base of the pyramid mainly because many of the individuals that occupy the BOP are illiterate and have no access to mass media channels. In order to understand the brand awareness and brand beliefs of the BOP, considerable time spent conducting participatory ethnographic studies in rural villages, peri-urban and urban slums and other developing communities is necessary. Ethnographic observations and co-creative in- terviews should be some of the research activities that take place through- out the product development process. Participatory Rural Assessment or PRA should be considered a standard approach in not only developing rapport with rural villagers but also as a method for understanding the needs of rural villagers in the context of the village 15,16 . Rural villager and slum dweller participation in ethnographic observations of their daily life will aid the product development teams in understanding how the BOP will deal with their various artifacts and situations not only from a usabil- ity perspective but also from a material-cultural perspective. Co-creative interviews in which rural villagers and slum dwellers actively participate in the design of the product and brand will help the product development teams to better understand how the BOP perceive the product/brand under development and will ensure better acceptance and adoption of the product and its brand once it is produced. So, Frugal Innovation is not about innovators delivering products and services to the BOP population. It is about creating impact at scale with BOP customers and suppliers, with their best interests in mine. 107 Doing Good, Doing Well Frugal Innovation is “Doing Good, While Doing Well.” It recog- nizes the bifurcated nature of BOP product development in terms of why we do it. While there is a general recognition that BOP businesses must generate self-sustaining cash flows, there are at least two very distinct BOP innovation-entrepreneurship narratives. One is the “doing good” narra- tive, which might also be thought of as the “social justice” narrative. This is the narrative that dominates the BOP discussion in the U.S. today. It captures the ethic and ethos of much of our student population, who are being referred to as Generation G, for generous 17 . This narrative com- bines humanitarian engineering and social entrepreneurship into a force for doing good in the world that is stripped of the “charity hangover” that dominated international development in the past. From a prosperous- Western perspective, embedded in this narrative is the idea that we are “giving back” to the world, and righting a wrong that our current eco- nomic system has not been able to address. The second narrative is the “doing well” notion, which might also be thought of as the “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” narrative. This ethic is unabashedly profit-oriented. Prahalad (2006) pointed out the size of the market, and the asset-light, high return-on-equity potential of BOP products. It is this ethic that is derived from their fiduciary re- sponsibilities that must drive the Global 2000. Together, these two narratives form the idea of “doing good, while doing well.” Both are capitalistic and for-profit oriented but have in com- mon a desire to address the ills of the BOP. Both mostly intend to do so by providing BOP populations with new sources of income, and innova- tive labor and energy saving technologies. In this decade, however, another compelling reason has arisen for U.S. universities to embrace Frugal Innovation: it is likely the next source of disruptive innovations that could displace many highly valued products in the developed world. We are staring in the face of the “Innovator’s Dilemma” on steroids writ large on a global playing field. Major compa- nies like GE have recognized this and are rebuilding themselves accord- ingly, usually not with U.S. Engineers who as cultural outsiders are at a disadvantage in developing BOP products. 108 Reverse Innovation Frugal Innovation is Reverse Innovation, a label that suggests BOP innovation will flow back into developed markets, eroding the global mar- ket position of many of our best companies 18 . From a poor-South per- spective, this is the opportunity for companies and entrepreneurs in the developing world to turn the innovation tables, and generate enormous wealth by not only serving BOP markets, but by infiltrating wealthier markets with new value propositions. Who among us would not want a high quality product that meets a need, yet is an order of magnitude less expensive than currently available in “top-of-the-pyramid” products? U.S. business schools often deemphasize cost-based competition. Forgoing cost positioning in favor of the differentiated high-value ground is stressed. This instruction can ignore the great value that cost-based competitors have consistently created in markets over the history of the industrial and information ages. Think Walmart and Southwest Airlines. Think the microprocessor and any number of exponentially advancing technologies driven by ongoing price-performance increases that obey Moore’s and similar laws. Examples or “reverse innovation” abound. One is the mixing cham- ber or spacer that attaches to asthma medicine “puffers” or atomizers to improve the diffusion into the lungs and that typically cost $50. A Frugal Innovation program has produced a functional spacer that is die cut from thin cardboard and assembled with no tools into a spacer. Reverse Inno- vation would take that cardboard version, possibly change it for developed world application, and keep the costs low so that it may sell for $0.50 in- stead of $50. This version is more sustainable, uses less material, less labor and is completely recyclable 19,20 . Or, how about the $2,000 Nano car from Tata? We saw a similar product come to the U.S. a few decades back called the Toyota Corolla, an initially cheap car that got on the quality curve early. The rest is history. Choose a rationale, or mix of rationales, for incorporating Frugal Innovation into the curricula of U.S. engineering, design and business programs: social justice, profit generation, or global competitive survival. In any case, the engineering education mandate is becoming clearer. 109 Global Collaboration in Higher Education In the end, we are largely concerned with how we train engineers and other disciplines through service learning in a complex, global, modern world. In higher education, Frugal Innovation involves global teams collab- orating to solve BOP challenges through innovation and entrepreneurship. At Arizona State University we continue to develop our curriculum in Social Entrepreneurship that includes working on BOP problems not only with multi-disciplinary teams at ASU, but also with partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America and poor regions in the U.S. We partner with universities close to the target communities where we intend to introduce and pilot test products resulting from our Frugal Innovation methodolog- ical process. We create “global virtual innovation teams.” Part of a team is at ASU and part is at the partner university. The community members are, of course, critical members of the team. We maintain close commu- nication and interaction throughout the projects, supplementing annual visits with the best of today’s web-based collaboration technologies. The global, technology-enabled nature of the teams allows frequent feedback and beta testing of prototypes with potential BOP customers. As with the best of similar programs in the U.S., we recognize that product and venture development often requires coordinating the efforts of many fac- ulty and students, in many courses, over multiple years. University In- tellectual Property and venture creation policies and processes must be observed and executed along the way. In so doing, we believe we are developing and delivering the next generation of innovation processes to our students and community part- ners, in service to all of our stakeholders, including ourselves. Conclusion Frugal Engineering is a concept that has emerged over the last few years to describe the new way in which we must think about the engi- neering processes, and how we need to rethink ways to develop products and services for demanding BOP customers and environments. We have realized over time that such processes, by their very nature, must approach BOP challenges from a systems point perspective, in a systematic, collab- orative and highly interdisciplinary method. Frugal Engineering is em- 110 bedded within a larger System Innovation context and, thus, should be thought of as an element of Frugal Innovation. Frugal Innovation, in turn, is nothing less than the systems engi- neering discipline we must adopt if we are to ensure prosperity for the global human society. Engineers have a critical role to play ensuring the well-being of the billions of people living in poverty today and in the fu- ture, as well as for the billions more that will be added in the coming decades. Engineers have an equally critical role to play in the sustainabil- ity of the planet as we care for its well being. Ultimately Frugal Innovation is an ethic and responsibility, and in many ways a higher calling: one that serves the human race, the earth and all its inhabitants in new, innovative and frugal ways that protect our re- sources, while taking advantage of the exponentially increasing technolo- gies that can create abundance out of scarcity. Thus, in the university context Frugal Innovation is at heart, a service learning paradigm that will soon be an indispensible cornerstone of the best global engineering curricula. REFERENCES 1 Seghal, V., Dehoff, K., Paneer, G. (2010) The Importance of Frugal Engineering, Strategy + Business, 59: 1-5. 2 Prahalad, C. K., (2006) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 3 Moore K. (2011) The Best Way to Innovation? An Important Lesson from India, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2011/05/24/the-best-way-to-inno- vation-an-important-lesson-from-india/, Posted 5/24/2011, Accessed online 03/05/2012. 4 Daly H.E., Cobb, J.B. (1994) For The Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press. 5 World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 6 Kates R, Parris T. (2003) Long-term trends and a sustainability transition, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Science, July, 100(14): 8062-8067. 111 7 Seager T, Selinger E, Wiek A (2011) Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2, Doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2, Accessed online first on March 1, 2012 8 Liu J., Dietz T., Carpenter S.R., Alberti M.R., Folke C.R., Moran E.R., Pell A.N., Deadman P.N., Kratz T.N., Lubchenco J.N., Ostrom E.N., Ouyang Z.N., Provencher W.N., Redman C.L., Schneider S.H., Taylor WW (2007a) Coupled human and natural systems, Ambio, 36: 639-649. 9 Liu J., Dietz T., Carpenter S.R., Alberti M.R., Folke C.R., Moran E.R., Pell A.N., Deadman P.N., Kratz T.N., Lubchenco J.N., Ostrom E.N., Ouyang Z.N., Provencher W.N., Redman C.L., Schneider S.H., Taylor W.W. (2007b) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems, Science, 317: 1513-1516. 10 Levin, S.A. (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1(5): 431-436. 11 Polak, P. (2008) Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 12 Simanis, E. & Hart, S., (2008). The Base of the Pyramid Protocol: Toward Next Generation BoP Strategy, Ithaca: Cornell University. 13 Karamchandani, A., Kubzansky, M., Frandano, P. (2009) Emerging Markets, Emerging Models: Markte-based Solutions to the Challenges of Global Poverty, Monitor Group, March 2009. 14 Henderson, M., Bekki, J., Doss, A., Tsang, J., Akhavan, O. (2010) Creating Supply Chains for New Ventures in Developing Countries, NCIIA Conference, San Francisco, March 25-27, 2010. 15 Chambers, R. (1992) Rural appraisal: Rapid, relaxed, and participatory. IDS Discussion Paper 311, University of Sussex, http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bit- stream/handle/123456789/774/Dp311.pdf?sequence=1, Accessed March 1, 2012. 16 Chambers, R. (1994) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm, World Development, 22(10): 1437-1454. 17 Guest, P. (2012) “One Brand Taps ‘Generation-G’ And The Rise Of The Philanthropic Consumer”, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ 2012/01/09/one-brands-tap-generation-g-ethical-consumer_n_1194786.html, Posted January 10, 2012, Accessed March 4, 2012. 18 Immelt, J.R., Govindarajan, V., Trimble, C. (2009) How GE is Disrupting Itself, Harvard Business Review, October 2009. 19 Green, E. (2012) Respira!: An Extremely Affordable Device for Better Asthma Care, http://www.changemakers.com/disruptive/entries/respira-extremely-affordable-device- better-asthma-care, Posted July 15, 2007 2:24am, Accessed March 4, 2012. 20 Fischer, G., Camargos, P. (2002) Paediatric asthma management in developing countries, Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 3(4): 285-291, December 2002. 112 113 “Tryhardtoﬁndoutwhatyou'regood atandwhatyourpassionsare,andwhere thetwoconverge,andbuildyourlife aroundthat.” — Joshua Lederberg Rural Kenyans exploring healthcare technology developed through Penn State’s Mashavu program 114 Overview The preceding chapters have provided an overview of skills and at- tributes students should possess in order to be successful in their careers over the coming decades. These chapters have described various Learning Through Service (LTS) educational models which arguably assist in fa- cilitating mastery of such skills by students. Significant emphasis has been placed on the fact that for these future engineers to be adequately trained to meet the challenges of the next generation, they must also master many other skills traditionally not thought of as part of the engineering cur- riculum. In this educational quest, one is struck by the similarities with a much earlier time in history and the generations that attempted to de- velop a broadly educated “renaissance person.” Such a person was trained in multiple disciplines, spoke several languages, understood philosophy and scientific teachings, appreciated literature and art, and engaged in athletics. This renaissance philosophy is making a resurgence, albeit with new terminology: the concept of “T-shaped” people. T-shaped people pos- sess deep analytical skills and domain knowledge (the vertical stroke of the ‘T’) as well as broad empathy toward other skills and knowledge bases encountered in business and other disciplines (the horizontal stroke of the ‘T’). Several academic and co-curricular programs described in previous chapters strive to develop these versatile professionals by engaging them in real-world LTS opportunities. A growing number of these LTS pro- grams at universities engage students in the development and implemen- tation of appropriate technology-based ventures. The aim is generally two-fold: a) to provide students with compelling educational experiences, Khanjan Mehta The Pennsylvania State University CHAPTER 6 ThePhilosophyandPraxisofConvergenceto ShapeanEmergentHigh-ImpactLearning ThroughServiceProgram and b) to address the needs of marginalized communities, whether they be at the so-called ‘base of the pyramid (BOP)’, or others domestically or internationally, who are simply too constrained to meet their basic needs on their own. These endeavors are usually well meaning, creatively de- signed, and enthusiastically deployed. However, for many of them, the sustainable impact does not match the vision set forth at the outset. This is due, in part, to an imbalanced valuation of immediate educational ex- periences for students over the long-term sustainable impact for such mar- ginalized communities. From a macro perspective, evaluations of international development efforts to assist communities in a sustainable fashion have revealed unsat- isfactory results or failures. For example, in 2004, the African Develop- ment Bank judged that 78% of the funds it disbursed were for projects that were ultimately unsustainable. Similarly, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), the World Bank’s private sector arm, examined the per- formance of 627 projects that were implemented between 1996 and 2006. Its findings reveal that over 40% of all projects were unsuccessful at gen- erating positive development results, and that in Africa specifically, more than half of the investments had low development ratings. Furthermore, when assessment of such projects is broadened to encompass a time frame beyond the immediate completion of the projects, the number of favor- able assessments falls considerably. Against this backdrop of highly mixed results from the efforts of professionals who attempt to affect change in such communities, we can examine the growing number of academic programs and extra-curricular clubs that engage students in developing appropriate technology-based solutions for developing communities around the world. Anecdotal stories and summaries of technology-based social ventures mirror the literature of the more formal development programs. Through these stories, we hear of ‘outsiders’ going into communities and implementing projects like solar panels, biodiesel systems, and water treatment facilities. From our evalu- ation, it appears that the following questions are often not asked, nor acted upon: Does this project result in sustainable value for partnering communities? Is the project’s sustainable value measured? Does the project lead to self-determined development for the community? What are the 115 results of the project in the long term? Questions arise on the engineering and sustainability aspects of such projects as well as the larger context of globalization, social justice, professional ethics, and cultural balances. A dismal track record of development efforts brings into question the effi- cacy, ethics and sustainability of interventions by external agents. At the same time, this is an unprecedented opportunity for univer- sities to take the lead on building collaborative LTS programs that con- centrate their resources to counter the failings of past development efforts. The quest is to ensure that the significant time, money, and energy ex- pended on projects by faculty-student teams results in meaningful and sustainable value-addition for the partnering communities. This chapter discusses the philosophy, praxis, pitfalls and practical lessons learned while striving to build an emergent high-impact LTS program at Penn State. The Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Program, referred to in this chapter, is a work-in-progress. This interna- tionally-recognized program has led over 30 ventures in ten countries over the past fifteen years. Many of these ventures have failed, some have suc- ceeded in reaching thousands of people while a few of them are on the slow but steady path towards sustainable existence and scaling up to ‘multi-million smile enterprises’. The insights shared in this chapter are based primarily on the author’s experience with the academic program since joining the effort eight years ago and bear the burden of his myriad biases, prejudices and ideologies. Philosophy of Engagement The HESE Program defines successful, sustainable projects as those largely determined by local people, with outsiders playing only a limited role. This is because external actors, while well-intentioned, may fail to understand the community dynamics and identify the most significant barriers to realizing the ventures. To mitigate this problem, HESE stu- dents begin by identifying the sticky information that relates to the societal context of the problem. They do so in collaboration with appropriate partners to overcome impediments in a systematic fashion. The focus is on finding an optimal distribution of time, money, and sweat to be shared by the communities and partnering organizations. This equity is critical 116 to achieving project sustainability. Sustainability, as we have come to un- derstand it, refers to the notion that a project should be technologically appropriate, environmentally benign, socially acceptable, and economi- cally sustainable. The program brings together students and faculty from every college across campus. It seeks the convergence of the tripartite uni- versity missions of teaching, research, and outreach by educating globally engaged, social problem solvers; creating sustainable value for developing communities; and generating and disseminating knowledge and lessons learned. Building long-term relationships with multi-sectoral partners and leveraging indigenous knowledge to foster developmental entrepreneur- ship form the foundation of all our initiatives. While we practice the ped- agogy of service learning to further the social ventures, we are not comfortable with using the word “service.” The focus of the program is not to “serve” anyone but to build equitable reciprocal relationships with diverse partners and work shoulder-to-shoulder with them to develop technologies and launch entrepreneurial ventures that prioritize the social returns while being economically sustainable. There is a growing recog- nition among students and faculty that they typically gain more from their engagement than what they give back to the partnering entities. Em- pathy, equity and ecosystems form the cornerstones of our philosophy of entrepreneurial engagement. This sentiment is captured by a quote from Dr. Govindappa Venkataswamy, the founder of the Aravind Eye Hospital in India: “When we grow in spiritual consciousness, we identify ourselves with all there is in the world. Then there can be no exploitation. It is ourselves we are helping. It is ourselves we are healing.” Integrated Design, Business Strategy, and Implementation Strategy Development Over the past fifteen years, HESE has led several technology-based social ventures in the US, Kenya, Jamaica, El Salvador, India, and other countries. The primary challenges for these projects were not on the en- gineering side, but were related to the cultural, social, ethical, and business 117 planning aspects, mostly during project implementation. The key chal- lenges, from most to least important, have been designing and evaluating appropriate systems; ensuring equity between the stakeholders; identifying marginalized stakeholders and engaging them in the project; understand- ing and managing power dynamics and privilege systems within commu- nities; identifying and incentivizing champions; public relations; and business planning with non-cash equity. For example, in Jamaica, the most significant challenge for an anaer- obic digester project was the development of trust between the partnering universities, identifying specific roles and duties, and following through with full participation by each. While building a bridge in El Salvador, disputes within the community as to where the bridge would be con- structed and who would benefit were critical. An understanding between all the stakeholders about their precise roles, duties, and benefits would have facilitated a smoother implementation of the project. For a windmill power system in Kenya, ensuring equitable contributions from the various stakeholders was the major challenge. These diverse experiences illustrate the need for a systematic process of implementing a solution in a collab- orative and harmonious manner. This implementation process encompasses several delicate activities including community identification and partnering, building trust, estab- lishing communication protocols, relationship building, and making de- cisions by consensus. The community is the core entity that must not only claim ownership of the project, but also contribute to its genesis, organi- zation, goals, funding allocations, and business plan. People in the com- munity must have a voice and authority on all aspects of the project. These are not merely concerns that need to be intellectually acknowledged; rather, they demand systematic, concrete steps. Preparing students to engage in such projects enriches their educational experience while simultaneously serving as the first step towards increasing the probability of success of such ventures. There is a need for structured methodologies, along with practical tools, to implement and evaluate the ventures in an equitable, sustainable, and scalable manner. This implementation strategy can also be referred to as the “go-to-market” strategy from an entrepreneurial perspective. If the goal is to actually launch sustainable social enterprises, uni- 118 versity-based educational programs cannot engage in the design of appro- priate technologies, develop business plans, and implement solutions in a linear piecemeal fashion. The engineering design team cannot simply hand their technology to the team tasked with developing the business plan, with the implementation team then taking the technology and the business plan into the community. Presenting the technology and the business plan to the community, even if they are the perfect solutions, is not the optimal approach either. Under such circumstances, the odds are against the community leaders actually championing the externally de- veloped technology and business plan. A collaborative and integrated “triple helix” approach of system design, business strategy, and im- plementation strategy development is essential. The process of oper- ationalizing the design and the business/implementation strategies is as important as the product itself. This integrated design and imple- mentation process encompasses conceptualization, validation, design, field-testing, implementation, and evaluation, all done in an iterative fash- ion. While some phases in the lifecycle can be executed remotely, the locus of the work needs to move to the community as the venture progresses. The team must bring together distinct stakeholders and engage them in a structured process from conceptualization through assessment to ensure they are creating sustainable value for the community while meeting their own objectives. When developing the venture, it is essential to acknowledge the fre- quent imbalance in the academic environment between knowledge gen- erated within the academy based upon positivistic epistemologies and knowledge generated through observation, experience, and experimenta- tion that occurs in the cultural context of communities. This locally gen- erated knowledge can be referred to as “indigenous knowledge.” This place-based knowledge is about the ways of knowing, seeing, and thinking that are passed down from generation to generation, and which reflect thousands of years of experimentation and innovation in all aspects of life. Positivistic, research-based knowledge has for a variety of social, po- litical, economic, and cultural reasons gained favor in academia, while in- digenous knowledge is often viewed with skepticism, if not contempt. The dichotomy between these views is often overlooked in the classroom. 119 As a consequence, students, armed with their laboratory-generated knowl- edge, find themselves in the field where the development perspective of “what will work in this village” is more immediately critical than a “sci- entific” understanding of the biological or physical mechanisms that are “causing” the problem. Students must be prepared to recognize this di- chotomy of epistemologies and work with community partners to make collaborative design, sustainability and implementation decisions that consider the multiplicity of life concepts and ways of knowing. Towards a Radical “Convergence” Frans Johansson, in his book The Medici Effect, recounts the story of the Medicis, a banking family in Florence, who were patrons in a wide range of disciplines. Thanks to the Medicis and other like-minded fami- lies, sculptors, scientists, poets, philosophers, financiers, painters, and ar- chitects from all over Europe and as far as China converged upon the city of Florence. There they found each other, learned from one another, and broke down the barriers between their disciplines and cultures. Together they formed a new world based on new ideas—what became known as the Rinascimento, or the Renaissance. The city became the epicenter of a creative explosion, and one of the most innovative eras in history followed. Johansson calls this phenomenon the “Medici Effect.” Johansson posits that the maximum probability of groundbreaking and revolutionary advances is at the convergence of concepts, disciplines, countries, and cultures. These advances are accelerated by modern com- putational power, communication infrastructure, and easy access to in- formation for everyone. Can we recreate the scenarios that preceded and propelled the Renaissance in our quest for promoting humanitarian en- gineering and social entrepreneurship education that results in lasting pos- itive impact? Using modern technology, can we bring together wildly different ideas from various disciplines and rapidly explore the potential of the resulting unique, concept combinations to become radical innova- tions? How do we ensure that our innovations will be technologically ap- propriate, environmentally benign, socially acceptable and economically sustainable? How do we design systems with the intimate involvement of all stakeholders so that the design meets their needs and use preferences 120 as well as contributes to a self-determined improvement of their liveli- hoods and agency? How do we shape a new renaissance that addresses global disparities and suffering with sustainable systemic solutions? The HESE program is based on the fundamental philosophy that the an- swer to “wicked” global challenges is through a convergence of 1) con- cepts, disciplines, and epistemologies; 2) cultures and countries; 3) teaching, research, and outreach; and 4) multi-sectoral partners that share a common vision and purpose. The various programs detailed in this book share the goals of en- hancing the educational experience for students while improving the lives of marginalized communities. Most programs share the convergence phi- losophy to a certain extent as they strive to meet expectations set by re- spective educational accreditation bodies, professional societies, and industry. Common threads amongst the programs include engaging in multidisciplinary efforts, enhancing cultural and global awareness, and engaging industry partners in LTS programs. Praxis of the convergence philosophy adds significant rigor to the student experience, while increas- ing the probability of success for scalable social ventures. ConvergenceofConcepts,Disciplines,andEpistemologies Social entrepreneurs need to understand not only the immediate problems they are trying to solve but also the larger social system and its interdependencies. A trans-disciplinary systems approach allows for the introduction of new paradigms at critical leverage points. It can lead to cascades of mutually reinforcing changes that create and sustain trans- formed social equilibriums. In essence, the social problems to be addressed and the potential solutions are fairly complex and require concepts and skills from various disciplines of engineering, agriculture, medicine, busi- ness, earth and mineral sciences, information science and technology, lib- eral arts, law, international affairs, and education. Melding concepts from the different disciplines can lead to new paradigms and realistic solutions and truly unleash meaningful innovation. Programs to foster innovation in developing countries are often de- signed and funded by people living and working in developed countries, with the consequence that these programs frequently espouse Western 121 notions, processes, and policies of innovation and development. They often approach innovation using scientific methods and empirical data to test and validate hypotheses, and fail to consider alternate epistemolo- gies; ways of knowing and the cultural context under which innovation frameworks and processes might be formulated or operationalized. This contrasts with people in developing communities, who utilize their in- digenous knowledge to address local challenges and develop new ways of doing things. For instance, the Maasai women know that the splinters of the wild olive (oloirien) tree can be burnt and used to smoke milk gourds to sterilize their milk. This practice has been used for generations, but the wild olive was neither tested nor analyzed for such preservative properties. The lack of scientific knowledge about the mechanism of an innovation on the part of the communities prevents many positivist thinkers from considering these indigenous methods as innovations or acknowledging their value. The real-world context and focus on indigenous communities around the world fosters inreach, or the bringing back of prior knowledge, perspectives, problems, and solutions to inform, guide, and enrich initia- tives. The HESE program brings together students and faculty from every single discipline across campus to work on technology-based social ven- tures. An illustration of a transformational convergence was a recent col- laboration between engineering and women’s studies. The team realized that social entrepreneurship encompasses the power and practicality of capitalism, inclusiveness of socialism and passion and critical eye of fem- inism. Working with the Women’s studies department in the College of Liberal Arts, we discovered how concepts from these three philosophies can be used to make our ventures more feasible and sustainable. We also learned the importance of deconstructing social situations that form the foundation of the problems that we are trying to address with technology solutions. In product development parlance, we learned effective method- ologies like analyzing the various power relations to unravel the “sticky information” related to the problems faced by these communities. Sticky Information refers to information that is difficult to replicate and diffuse because it is embodied in the people, places, organizations, societal con- structs and other contextual entities. The sticky information, including 122 an understanding of the various power relations, helps identify key stake- holders, marginalized stakeholders, constraints and resources to be con- sidered in the design process leading to innovative and sustainable solutions. In essence, a radical convergence of concepts, disciplines, and epistemologies can help develop an enabling framework for passionate students and faculty to break down the barriers amongst them, and be- tween them and the collaborating communities. ConvergenceofCulturesandCountries We live in an interconnected, global world. We strive to develop engineers who are aware of the global nature of their profession, and the challenges and opportunities that it brings. LTS programs should provide experiential and immersive international and domestic educational op- portunities with an entrepreneurial flavor in order to develop world-class engineers and entrepreneurial, global citizens. Development of a large network of partners and collaborators - communities, industry, commu- nity-based organizations, non-governmental organizations, faith-based organizations, governmental agencies, UN agencies and similar programs, is essential. Such entities provide the social capital to enable synergies that facilitate the shared quest for sustainable solutions. Communication among collaborators is essential, and overcoming logistical hurdles to achieve an optimal level of interaction is a significant obstacle. The importance of empathy must be stressed along with advocating relationship-based projects over project-based relationships. Sustainable solutions require intimate understanding of the community and its re- sources, constraints, political and economic conditions, as well as the in- digenous knowledge its members use to address problems. Indigenous knowledge is gradually being re-evaluated and considered as an inspiring source of strategies for sustainable development. This knowledge has im- mense value for the culture in which it develops and also for entrepreneurs and problem-solvers seeking solutions to community problems across the world. For solutions to be successful and sustainable, they must be de- signed with the intimate involvement of all stakeholders so that the design meets their needs and use preferences and contributes to a self-determined improvement of their livelihoods and agency. There is no data available 123 on the importance placed on indigenous perspectives and knowledge by the many students who travel to remote communities bringing with them their pre-conceived projects and technological solutions to “help” local residents solve what the students have determined to be pressing local problems. How can universities prepare students to be socially and glob- ally conscious leaders and entrepreneurs that respect and appreciate in- digenous knowledge? How do we bring the perspectives of indigenous people with different epistemologies and philosophies of life into the class- room? For whose benefit are we engaging in outreach projects? If it is for the community’s benefit, how can students ignore the vast store of knowl- edge that its residents have accumulated over time? If we want students to have an appreciation for indigenous knowledge, it is important to make the information in sociology and anthropology textbooks “come alive” for them. The humanities and social sciences help bring in these perspec- tives and epistemologies into the classroom to prepare students to work in the field. Technological innovation focused on Western populations, and trickled down or recycled to the poor, has arguably contributed to en- demic global disparities and the continued dependency of Southern, or post-colonial, people. We need to prompt students to create strategies de- signed for those at the base of the pyramid to empower those individuals to lift themselves out of poverty and dependence. This approach is based on the notion that development should lead to freedom, and that indige- nous communities will thrive if they find themselves in an environment in which they can effectively influence their lives. Self-determination is defined as an individual’s ability to pursue goals that are personally mean- ingful to them and may be conceptualized and operationalized at the in- dividual or aggregate levels (e.g., a village or a sub-segment of a community). According to many development scholars, individuals in- herently seek their optimal development, but this kind of development is only attainable if individuals are supported by a nurturing environment that helps them meet three basic needs: a) they live in social contexts that help individuals feel competent, b) they enjoy a sense of being au- tonomous and c) they experience a sense of being related. Such needs, when satisfied, will facilitate intrinsically motivated self-help behavior. 124 From a design perspective, understanding the user’s needs requires a level of scrutiny and empathy for not only the partners in the host community, but also the role of the university team in that context. The convergence of cultures facilitates the development of trust and empathy that can ul- timately lead to stronger solutions and entrepreneurial ecosystems to sup- port and scale them in the longer term. ConvergenceofTeaching,ResearchandOutreach We believe that teaching, research and outreach should be intricately connected, so as to optimize venture accomplishments and provide rig- orous educational experiences at the same time. Students should be en- couraged and mentored to publish their original work in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. Students and faculty in the HESE program conduct research and publish in several areas ranging from social entrepreneurship theory, systems thinking, food security, post-harvest technologies, telemedicine systems, cellphones, social networks & trust, indigenous knowledge systems and development, educational assessment tools, tropical diseases, equitable tourism and so on. Making effective pre- sentations and clearly articulating ideas is another essential skillset that students develop when they travel to conferences and make presentations. Students should also be encouraged and mentored to participate in vari- ous local and national competitions focused on social enterprise. The convergence of participatory research and social entrepreneur- ship uncovers and emphasizes the community’s self-determined needs, re- sources and aspirations and helps leverage them to create sustainable value. Ideas, products and services imposed from the outside that lack commu- nity buy-in are likely to fail. Even if they succeed economically, they are less likely to succeed socially and might not improve the community’s ho- listic wellbeing. Partnering with the appropriate local organizations is par- ticularly important for student ventures because a lack of understanding of the foreign culture’s inner workings can result in negative consequences for the community. Participatory research is a pragmatic approach to un- derstanding the context and how the technology venture might create sustainable value for the communities involved. This type of research en- gages stakeholders in a collaborative and open environment where all par- 125 ticipants are considered equal and active partners in local problems, re- sources and solutions. The findings of these research initiatives can lead to better designs and systemic solutions while the research process can help build trust and ownership amongst the stakeholders and facilitate the implementation of the solution. Participatory research, when conducted in an organic and truly in- clusive manner, can catalyze a community by educating them about the venture (intervention) and how they might benefit from it. The venture might offer micro-enterprise opportunities to some stakeholders and lead to improved livelihoods, while directly addressing a problem faced by an- other stakeholder group. While the educational opportunities brought about by the research process can be transformative by themselves, they can also accelerate the formation of a reliable customer base for the ven- ture and increase its likelihood of economic success. This customer base is likely to be loyal to the venture since they have contributed to it and have a sense of pride and ownership in it. For example, consider an LED lantern venture in a rural community. A participatory research endeavor to understand the socio-economics of the community might be initiated to help formulate the business and implementation strategies and establish the product’s supply chain. Local youth might coordinate the study and seek inputs from all the community members. While eliciting their thoughts, the youth might explain the problems with kerosene lamps and how the LED lanterns can provide more light while improving health and saving money. This approach would bring the community together and educate them about LED lanterns while also developing the customer base for recharging the lanterns on a regular basis. While such research endeavors are inherently focused on the specific community, the results can be relevant to other communities and entre- preneurs tackling similar challenges. It is beneficial to disseminate these findings, observations, and lessons learned to academic and practitioner communities through conferences and journals. This is also an opportu- nity to enhance student learning gained from the entrepreneurial ventures by concurrently involving them in original, institution-approved research. Several challenges emerge while planning and conducting research proj- ects in developing country contexts and many of them can be addressed 126 by appropriate local partnerships. Partners can be particularly helpful in navigating the inherent contradictions and challenges of the university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that oversee all research projects. Col- laborative frameworks have proven beneficial to the validation and im- plementation of social ventures. Various methodologies that engage diverse stakeholders to validate the venture as well as help them negotiate their roles, responsibilities and returns have been field-tested and found to be instrumental to the overall success of the venture. The success of a social venture hinges on a business plan based on valid assumptions, accurate information and access to the knowledge of local partners. Participatory research, through its organic and qualitative approach, can help validate assumptions and gather relevant information to craft a venture’s business and implementation strategies. Stakeholders’ participation in the research endeavor can lead to expectations and own- ership which, although desirable, have the potential to negatively impact the success of the venture and limit its scalability. Simultaneously, the in- formation inaccuracies that owe their genesis to the expectations built by the venture can compromise the validity and integrity of the research en- deavor. Research conducted for ventures is a highly context-specific process and engaging participants in each location where the venture is to be initiated may not be feasible. For infrastructure-based ventures, scale-up will likely occur through replication rather than by expanding operations in one location. In this case, the business strategy, based on participatory research that engages a single community from one location, may not be ideal in another location. The designs for the venture must be determined by the needs of the people. Research is the means by which one can collect information on those needs and resources. There are two possible ways to scale-up a venture: scale-up operations or replicate the model. For example, a venture can make a treadle pump in one location and then ship it across the region or country to scale-up operations, or the venture can replicate the business operations in various regions of op- eration. Engaging people in every place and every location might not be achievable and thus tension arises when considering how much to cus- tomize and how much to standardize when a venture is being designed and implemented. Oftentimes, it is beneficial to standardize operations to facilitate quality control, build brand identity, and facilitate scale-up. 127 Consistency and standardization help develop trust, an extremely impor- tant characteristic of successful ventures. Standardizing the concept-of- operations versus customizing the design and business strategy across several regions presents interesting research questions related to several disciplines. Engaging in such integrated research and entrepreneurship projects is an excellent opportunity for faculty to meet their publication requirements while also advancing the state of the art in the praxis of development and social enterprise. Alignment of research agendas and support from peers, es- pecially with respect to promotion and tenure, remain two of the largest ob- stacles to capitalizing on such opportunities. While faculty interest in publishing in this domain might be challenging, our experience over the last four years indicates that students are very receptive to the idea of working on conference and journal publications and are willing to go significantly above and beyond what is expected of them to get their papers published. ConvergenceofAcademiaandIndustry Collaborations between universities and industry are absolutely es- sential in a knowledge-based economy. The historic involvement of pub- licly-funded universities in the United States, particularly with applied agricultural research and industry are well-known. Many universities— equipped with modern experimental equipment, the ability to provide high-quality analytical services, and an improved knowledge of how to work with the private sector—have been very successful in building strate- gic partnerships with local and global industry. They have also been able to successfully launch their lab-developed innovations into the local, na- tional, and global marketplace. These partnerships have led to lucrative, sponsored research contracts and licensing agreements. A synergistic in- terdependence is created between academia and technology-driven enter- prises, helping universities play a role in their country’s economic development. The importance of university research in the United States system of technological innovation is admired, and is often cited as a model that other countries, particularly in the developing world, should emulate. Academia and industry create social and economic value. They also face the challenge of balancing these often competing goals. The university’s 128 core mission is to serve as a primary intellectual and cultural resource for society and is fulfilled through its tripartite goals of teaching, research, and community engagement. To accomplish this, it depends heavily on contri- butions from business and government, in addition to individuals and foun- dations, and is expected to experiment with different means of addressing social needs. In turn, it is expected that government or business will reward worthy performance by providing sustained support and helping scale-up or replicate successful, socially-oriented programs. However, the income- generating side of the university often fails to see eye-to-eye with the soci- ety-serving side. Whereas the income-generating side must court corporations for cause-marketing partnerships, the society-serving side must monitor and even denounce corporations for their poor social performance. The core role of industry is to produce goods and services demanded by customers in a competitive market in a manner that generates a favorable return on investment and creates the capital required for future investment, innovation, and risk-taking. However, industry is also expected to be socially responsible and contribute to the community, not only by producing im- portant goods and services, providing jobs and generating a tax base, but also by being a good corporate citizen. R. Scott Fosler in his book “Working Better Together” discusses the convergence of government, industry and non-profit organizations to unleash social innovation. “Government, business, and nonprofit organizations in the United States historically have worked together to achieve impor- tant public purposes. Today, such cross-sector collaborations, part- nerships, and alliances are more important than ever in addressing the increasing number of complex public issues that spill over sectoral boundaries. The three sectors have been explor- ing new ways of carrying out their core roles, employing strategies and practices that are changing the relationships and blurring the distinctions among them. So cross-sector collaboration today is re- quired not only to tackle complex public problems that no one sector can handle alone, but also to better understand and rede- fine the relationships and strategies of the three sectors.” – R. Scott Fosler 129 A significant gap, commonly called the “valley of death,” exists be- tween a technology’s genesis through sponsored research and its dissemi- nation to market through early-stage companies. In the American context, early-stage technology business incubators, venture creation workshops, idea-to-product competitions, and other initiatives have emerged to help bridge this valley of death and get innovative products to market. How- ever, to date, fewer such support mechanisms have emerged for social en- terprises that originate from the confines of academia. Amongst the few current, capable, and active supporters is the National Collegiate Inven- tors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA). The NCIIA does exceptional work in supporting the development of socially-beneficial businesses through their “e-team” philosophy, which encourages student-led, faculty-men- tored teams to create social enterprises. While a few student start-ups have successfully launched their products in the developing world, umpteen other teams with high potential for impact have failed because they could not make a multi-year commitment to their ventures. Even for teams that decide to make the commitment, the academic linkages that provided them with experiential learning opportunities, access to subject-matter experts, laboratory facilities, and other valuable resources, are likely to weaken over time. While it is essential for the student venture to be inde- pendent, the gradual separation from academia is a loss for everyone. The student team loses access to valuable resources, academia misses out on the real-world energy and “inreach” that the venture can infuse into the learning and research environment, while the probability of the innovative product reaching the market is reduced. Consequently, there is a need for other models of entrepreneurial engagement. Faculty-led, multi-year venture teams with students championing various aspects over the venture’s lifecycle is another valid approach to bridging the “valley of death.” This is a novel way of thinking for most university systems, and brings up complicated questions around intellec- tual property, conflict of interest, faculty promotion and tenure, and lia- bility. Unconventional intellectual property policies and candid discussions on such issues can lead to an open and trusting culture that results in stronger academic programs and larger real-world impact. Our team has observed that stakeholders are often overly concerned about who will own 130 the intellectual property, even though they realize that they do not have the resources or interest in actively monetizing the intellectual property. Open-sourcing the intellectual property at the outset eliminates some of the conflicts and tensions, and can be especially helpful in developing part- nerships with industry and non-profit partners. Notably, open-sourcing some of the key aspects of the technology does not prohibit student teams, industry, or academia from refining the technology and monetizing it in different ways. HESE ventures are integrated into credit courses through the “eplum model” of student engagement. These are multi-year academic ventures where student teams advance the project through various phases of its lifecycle. While students are still at the helm of these ventures, faculty members are intricately involved in all aspects of the projects and essentially lead the ventures across their entire lifecycle. Industry and professional experts provide domain expertise on var- ious HESE ventures. Companies are often excited about how their own products can be used for technology-based social ventures. Innovative ac- ademia-industry-nonprofit partnership models can serve as conduits be- tween companies, students, and developing communities, thus creating win-win situations for all entities. For example, we have developed a part- nership where application engineers from National Instruments Corpo- ration advise teams in a bioengineering class working on the design and prototyping of low-cost biomedical devices based on virtual instrumen- tation. Venture capitalists, medical professionals, and legal professionals from around the United States are vital resources for our core teams and advise on our venture’s strategy on an ad-hoc basis. Beyond the partici- pation of universities and village communities, there are a number of stakeholders who play crucial roles in project sustainability. These include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organiza- tions (CBOs), religious groups, international aid agencies, foundations, and government-sponsored development groups in the countries we work in. Like all who endeavor in the development field, these entities are not without shortcomings. For example, they may have unsubstantiated wari- ness of university participation for various reasons, including a lack of un- derstanding of the context and scope of projects, lack of formal relationship between themselves and university groups, fear of competi- 131 tion, and fear of the unknown. At the same time, these groups can be phenomenal champions that facilitate technology transfer and provide structure and support to interventions by university groups through their experience, personal relationships, and access to information. Many NGOs have been operating for long periods of time in communities and have attained the trust and confidence of community members and lead- ers, providing an invaluable asset to venture teams. ConvergenceandPraxisofEducationalModelsand Philosophies “A new form of engineering education is needed, one that covers a wide range of technical and non-technical issues….The chal- lenge of creating a sustainable world demands a new and holistic look at the role of engineering in society …… to allow all humans to enjoy a quality of life where basic needs of water, sanitation, nutrition, health, safety, and meaningful work are fulfilled.” – Bernard Amadei (Founder of Engineers without Borders - USA) and William Wallace (Author, Be- coming Part of the Solution: The Engineer’s Guide to Sustainable Development) The pedagogy of service learning has been studied and evaluated over a substantial period of time. Service learning incorporates two key elements, requiring students to, first, participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and, second, reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility. Service learning draws on four criteria sug- gested by John Dewey for “projects to be truly educative”: 1. Projects generate genuine interest among the students because they address a real problem. 2. Projects are worthwhile because they have an intent to create a real positive benefit for specific individuals. 132 133 3. Projects often present problems that demand students’ creativity and self-directed learning. 4. Most experiences generally span enough time (typically at least an entire semester) to allow genuine learning to occur. Rather than focusing on any one educational objective, or even sev- eral, the true power of LTS may lie in its ability to achieve a wide array of learning outcomes in an efficient manner. The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities recommended that serv- ice learning “should be viewed as among the most powerful of teaching procedures, if the teaching goal is lasting learning that can be used to shape student’s lives around the world.” Service learning, in its theoretical (i.e., equitable) form can act as the pedagogical foundation for any LTS program. With service learning acting as the foundation, the benefits and resulting synergies of engaging in humanitarian engineering, social entre- FIGURE 6.1 EDUCATION FRAMEWORK USING SERVICE LEARNING AS THE PEDAGOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE OF FACULTY- STUDENT LED VENTURES preneurship, and frugal innovation offer exciting opportunities to achieve the vision set forth by Amadei and Wallace. The framework offered in Figure 6-1 advances a “new form of engineering education,” which results in a “new and more holistic look at the role of engineering in society.” In this framework, the synergy and benefits of each educational area symbi- otically benefits the others. Humanitarian engineering may be defined as research and design under constraints to directly improve the wellbeing of marginalized com- munities. The most distinctive aspect of this type of engineering is its tar- geted audience, i.e., those that might be classified as marginalized, as well as its focus on actually implementing sustainable solutions to benefit those individuals and their communities. Designing solutions for complex problems in resource-constrained contexts necessitates systems thinking and a trans-disciplinary approach to develop innovative and realistic so- lutions. Humanitarian engineers must design and build high-quality, fea- ture-appropriate technologies and products that are affordable, require low maintenance, reduce waste and inefficiency, and are designed with the socio-ecological context of their customers in mind. Humanitarian engineering necessitates a conscious and rigorous application of systems thinking. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to solving complex prob- lems by considering each issue as a part of a web of interconnected sys- tems, rather than independent entities with unrelated consequences. Such an approach focuses attention on the larger picture and wider processes of change, rather than concentrating on discrete outputs at the project level. Systems thinking can be especially helpful in navigating the com- plexity and chaos inherent in technology-based social ventures in devel- oping communities. Social entrepreneurship extends the humanitarian engineering ef- forts by attempting to “create social impact by developing and implement- ing sustainable business models while drawing on these innovative solutions that benefit the disadvantaged and, ultimately, society at large.” Innova- tions, especially in developing communities, owe their genesis to everyday needs in their inherently resource-constrained environments. An under- standing of innovation as defined and practiced by these communities can provide us deeper insights into the cultural and sociological processes 134 that drive the emergence of these context-specific innovations. Grassroots innovation takes on various avatars in different cultures - such as the con- cept of bricolage in France, a hack in the United States or jugaad in India. A more sophisticated form of grassroots innovation, “frugal engineering” is practiced by engineering design firms, especially in emerging markets and can be interpreted as a form of low-cost engineering design to address local market needs. The Tata Nano car in India and Zhongxing Medical’s low-cost X-ray machines in China are examples of technologies that cater to a large number of people and provide them with services that they were initially unable to afford. As frugal engineering takes the market by storm in the developing world, the need for introducing these simple, effective and inexpensive designs in the developed world is emerging as a comple- mentary trend. This process of introducing products and services designed for the developing world in western countries at radical price points is re- ferred to as “trickle-up innovation.” In today’s interdependent world, it is essential to value innovations from western countries with advanced scientific know-how as well as de- veloping countries with constrained resources. Constraints spark innova- tion, and innovative solutions can lead to economic growth and development in emerging economies while revolutionizing markets in ad- vanced economies. For all HESE ventures, students are given very specific price targets that are determined by faculty after careful consideration of many factors. For example, we have challenged students to develop $10 biomedical devices for East Africa and students have repeatedly come up with ruggedized prototypes under that price point. Students have devel- oped $200 greenhouses and $120 solar dryers by truly understanding the science and engaging in context-driven design that emphasizes user-cen- tered design, extreme affordability and systems thinking. These radical price targets have been met without compromising on the desired features or the safety of the device. A Fundamental Canon (often called First Principle) of many engi- neering professional bodies is to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”. If design teams identify and add safety features to a product for the developing world, the people cannot afford it anymore! How do you design products for extreme affordability and live up to the 135 First Principle at the same time? For the student teams, the key to success is integrated design, business strategy and implementation strategy devel- opment with a frugal innovation mindset. In order to succeed, teams need to negotiate amongst themselves (and their local partners) on whether a certain design goal (like safety requirements) will be met in the physical hardware design, in software (for cell phone/computer-based systems), through the business strategy by focusing on a specific market, the im- plementation process, the legal organization and user agreements, or stakeholder education. This negotiation requires deep understanding of the context, the users, and all aspects of the venture and epitomizes the praxis of convergence and systems thinking to create an emergent learning environment and high-potential entrepreneurial venture. The rigorous integration of humanitarian engineering, social entre- preneurship, frugal innovation has the potential to transform a mundane service learning program that focuses on low-impact service activities to high-impact game-changing social enterprises. Several universities have broken away from service programs where students make presentations, paint walls at schools and install solar panels in an ad-hoc fashion to de- signing and launching sustainable and scalable ventures focused on solar lanterns, affordable greenhouses, biomedical devices and several other technologies that seek to sustainably address developmental challenges. Integration of the research component strengthens the venture while adding rigor to the student’s education by further developing their entre- preneurial mindset and venture creation competencies. The scholarly re- search can lead to publications in refereed journals and conference proceedings, which serve as tangible outputs for the students while ad- vancing the cumulative knowledge in the field at the same time. A Problem is a Prerequisite; A Prerequisite is a Problem One of the primary challenges to realizing this multi-faceted con- vergence in the academic arena is a host of institutional obstacles to stu- dent and faculty participation. Often these obstacles take the form of a required vertical integration of coursework and lock-step synthesis of knowledge over the four years of college education. For example, freshmen might be forbidden from taking senior-level classes until they are in their 136 junior year or students from one discipline may be forbidden from taking courses in another discipline. Tacit prerequisites refer to cultural, socio- economic or political norms, perceptions and biases that preclude the de- velopment of open forums for collaboration. For examples, certain courses might be considered geeky and hence not welcome women while other courses/ventures might be seen as feminine and might dissuade male stu- dents. Some international educational opportunities might be too expen- sive and beyond the reach of certain student groups. While these situations cannot always be prevented, conscious efforts need to be made to create an accessible program. At the same time, we fundamentally believe that formal pre-requisites should not apply to such integrated learning, research and entrepreneurial engagement programs. The technology aspects of the venture need a concerted engineering effort based in a self-selected core class. While this class must have a healthy mix of engineering and non-engineering students, targeted recruiting is not necessary for any partnering peripheral courses. It is essential for stu- dents to work in multi-disciplinary cross-functional teams to practice in- tegrated engineering design and entrepreneurship. Students - freshmen through PhD students - from every single college must be brought to- gether to achieve this convergence. The HESE Progam believes that three foundational pre-requisites for achieving the educational, entrepreneurial and research goals are: • The courses/ventures must be open to students from all disciplines across campus. • The courses/ventures must be open to freshmen through PhD students (and ideally high school students and individuals without formal education too) • Students must be self-selected and intrinsically motivated to lead the core teams of the ventures. The real pre-requisites for students are time commitment, an open mind and passion. These pre-requisites for the program fundamentally conflict with the notion of stipulating pre-requisites for the courses themselves. We have observed that students typically succeed without having taken spe- cific stipulated courses earlier. In this section, we have provided several 137 rationales to substantiate our apprehension of formal or tacit pre-requisites and confidence in students’ academic success without the prerequisites. The key educational outcomes of our program are related to human cen- tered design, social entrepreneurship, innovation, ultra-multidisciplinary teamwork, global awareness and engagement, systems thinking, ethics, etc. These knowledge, skills, competencies and mindsets are not linear educational pursuits. These are learning continuums and students (as well as practitioners and faculty) mature and get better with experience, en- gagement and association – that programs like HESE provide: • Experience in a faculty-mentored rigorous environment. • Engagement in the true spirit of collaboration and co-creation with community partners. • Association with designers, users, innovators, and everyone that does…or does not matter. Human Centered Design (HCD) is an approach to design, that grounds the design process in information about the people who will use the product. Jane Fulton Suri, CEO of IDEO talks about how “Obser- vation, intuition, empathy and imagination about customers, end-users, and consumers can inspire and inform innovation”. Empathizing with the users and understanding their social context is critical to success. Mul- tidisciplinary teams with varied life experiences facilitate affective design. Radical perspectives and worldviews inform and inspire innovation that creates value for people. The notion of reductionism - that you can un- derstand something best by taking it apart and studying all of its pieces - discourages us from zooming out, and looking at the big picture. Systems thinking encourages students to explore the interdependencies among the elements of the system and looking for meaningful patterns rather than understanding or rote memorization of isolated theories and facts. Chil- dren are born systems thinkers – they do not differentiate between sub- jects and bring everything they know to the table when trying to learn something new…and also think about the big picture at the same time. Younger but mature students bring these systems perspectives to their de- sign teams. 138 139 In the real-world, there are no disciplines or pre-requisites. There are only “big, hairy” problems and appropriate solutions. Design teams often consist of fresh out-of-college professionals working shoulder-to- shoulder with experts with decades of experience. In the global arena and especially in programs like HESE, students often work with extremely well-educated professionals as well as people who never graduated middle school and yet are excellent engineers, designers and entrepreneurs. En- trepreneurship is about value creation – it’s about playing by strengths. We want students to learn how extremely diverse teams can work together and build on their own and peers’ strengths to meet the needs of the ven- ture (and learn from that process). The extreme diversity in the classroom is an opportunity for the students to self-organize and learn how to play by strengths: Design, Entrepreneurship, and Systems Thinking in action! There is a body of literature that explores how children are more creative than adults. Sir Ken Robinson, noted creativity researcher, ar- gues that the schooling system is undermining creativity rather than nurturing it. In our program, some of the most innovative ideas have consistently come from lower division students rather than graduate students. Our assessment results over three years indicate that the top three things that students report learning from their field experiences are life skills, humility and innovation. Students consistently report learning innovation from our partners in developing communities that live in resource-constrained environments. Design and entrepreneurship both need creativity and discipline. Entrepreneurship is inherently chaotic while research requires order and discipline to uncover general- izable results. Balancing creativity and discipline & entrepreneurship and research can be particularly challenging in the extremely chaotic environment of developing countries. Dealing with ambiguity and chaos is another extremely valuable skill that’s a learning continuum. The diversity of individuals on the design teams provides more chaos and the framework for optimal solutions at the same time! Freshmen arrive in college with a high school education, 16-18 years of life experiences and fewer rigid notions. They possess the academic knowledge and experience to engage in design and entrepreneurship. The strength of the learning outcomes for the students from different disci- plines and semester standings are going to be different. Although our as- sessment efforts did not delve specifically into this question, the data in- dicates that there are no specific rules on who benefits more – by discipline or semester standing or life experiences. The important point is that the students are maturing in the educational outcomes mentioned earlier. They have their own learning trajectories and it is inappropriate to com- pare them with other students who have their own learning tracks. High-impact LTS programs have the potential to change the public perception of engineering as a care-giving profession that strives to im- prove the quality of life for people across the world. The majority of the students in the HESE program are women who want to rethink and em- ploy engineering to solve global problems. Changing the perception of engineering, especially amongst women and under-represented groups, is important to building a diverse supply chain of engineers. Engineering, Design, Entrepreneurship are mindsets and approaches that are relevant to all disciplines and can learn from all disciplines. HESE courses have a significant applied ethics component. The di- versity of students and perspectives is a richer learning environment for ethics. “How do we prepare students to want to make ethical decisions?” and “how do we do so without indoctrinating them?” Our team’s obser- vations validate anecdotal claims by other similar programs that humani- tarian engineering and social entrepreneurship programs draw passionate students that get emotionally attached to the projects, the people and their role in helping “make the world a better place”. This presents a unique op- portunity to engage them in the ethical intricacies with the dual purpose of ethics education and ensuring that the projects themselves are being conducted in an ethical and appropriate manner that results in self-deter- mined development. We often refer to engineering as an art as well as a science. In practice, our educational system focuses much more on the sci- ence than the art. The HESE program provides the framework to explore the art as well as the science of integrated engineering design, business strategy and implementation strategy development and execution. There are no prerequisites for artists, innovators and entrepreneurs. Development of programs like HESE is an opportunity to rethink and redesign our ed- ucational system and ultimately fulfill the vision of Charles Vest: 140 “Making universities and engineering schools exciting, creative, adventurous, rigorous, demanding, and empowering environ- ments is more important than specifying curricular details.” – Charles Vest, President, NAE, President Emeritus, MIT Conclusion For most students, their experience with HESE is transformational as it exposes them to situations, opportunities and career paths they had never imagined. Some of our alumni are pursuing their entrepreneurial dreams, some have altered their career paths and pursued programs like Teach for America and Peace Corps, some have quickly become subject matter experts on innovation and emerging markets at the multinational corporations (MNCs) they work for, and some students are pursuing un- conventional career paths like trying to start entrepreneurial degree pro- grams at universities in the developing world! A common thread is that they consider themselves entrepreneurial global citizens and believe in the HESE quest to make the world a freer, fairer, friendlier and more sustain- able planet. At the same time, HESE teams have led scores of potentially high-impact ventures in numerous countries over the last fifteen years. Many of these ventures have failed, some have succeeded in reaching thousands of people while a few of them are on the slow but steady path towards sustainable existence and scaling up to ‘multi-million smile en- terprises’. Common strategic goals for colleges and universities are to empha- size innovation and entrepreneurship, internationalization, multidiscipli- nary teamwork and public scholarship. This presents a phenomenal opportunity for faculty to build and integrate high-impact LTS programs into the academic landscape. It is imperative that such programs raise the bar, and advance from low-impact service activities (aka painting orphan- ages, holding hands and singing songs) to rigorous collaborative design and entrepreneurship ecosystems that nurture sustainable self-determined development. Our experiences have taught us that such programs and emergent ventures can significantly benefit from a multi-faceted conver- gence of 1) concepts, disciplines, and epistemologies; 2) cultures and countries; 3) teaching, research, and outreach; and 4) multi-sectoral part- 141 142 ners that share a common vision and purpose. Engaging in potentially high-impact LTS programs that focus on scalable ventures can be extremely challenging and rewarding at the same time. Faculty members need to realize that the development of a program of this nature is a social venture by itself. It requires the same triple-helix strategy of integrated curriculum, business strategy and implementation strategy development (and execution). The organic coalition-building process is extremely important and needs to take into account the unique culture of the university system. Faculty need to gradually develop part- nerships with other faculty members, departments and centers in every college of the university. The idea is to identify champions in those pock- ets and work together to build confidence and engage in larger collabo- rative academic projects over time. It will require several years of dedicated and persistent effort until the academic ecosystem matures and successful ventures start emerging. Equity, empathy and ecosystems serve as corner- stones of the philosophy of engagement during every phase of this quest; whether the journey is introspective, through academic silos and bureau- cracies, or towards venture success with marginalized communities in re- source-constrained environments. 143 Bibliography (A significant portion of this essay is a synthesis of my previous publications. As pointed out earlier, this chapter is strictly an opinion piece. However, several themes discussed in this chapter have been delved in a more rigorous and indepth fashion in publications listed in this bibliography) • Baskaran, S., Malekar, G., Mehta, K. “The Global Jugaad Commons: Cross- pollinating Concepts across Cultures”, NCIIA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, March 2012 • Bell, C., Dzombak, R., Sulewski, T., Mehta, K., “ Preparing and Complying with Institutional Review Board Protocols for Integrated Research and Entrepreneurship Ventures in Developing Countries”, Journal of Ethics and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012 • Fernando, J. L. 2003. “NGOs and the production of indigenous knowledge under the condition of postmodernity”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590 (1), 54–72. • Independent Evaluation Group, “Independent Evaluation Finds over 40% of IFC Projects Fail to Deliver Development Results,” Bank Information Center, 2007 • Mathias, B., Grzybowski, A., Mehta, K., “When Participatory Research and Business Strategy Collide: Lessons from Base-of-Pyramid Ventures,” NCIIA Annual Conference, San Francisco, March 2012 • Mehta, C., Mehta, K., “A Design Space and Business Strategy Exploration Tool for Infrastructure-Based Ventures in Developing Communities”, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011 • Mehta, K., Morais, D., Zappe, S., Brannon, M., Zhao, Y., “Milking the Rhino - Innovative Solutions Showcase: Promoting ethics education, user-centered design and social entrepreneurship in the global context”, Engineering Ethics Division, ASEE Annual Conference, June 2011 • Mehta, K., Semali, L., Fleishman, A., Maretzki, A., “Leveraging Indigenous Knowledge to foster Developmental Entrepreneurship”, NCIIA Annual Conference, Alexandria, March 2011 • Mehta, K., Brannon, M., Zappe, S., Colledge, T., Zhao, Y., “eplum Model of Student Engagement: Expanding non-travel based Global Awareness, Multi- disciplinary Teamwork and Entrepreneurial Mindset Development”, International Division, ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, 2010 • Mehta, K., Laliberte, N., Fleishman, A., Wittig, J., De Reus, L., Dowler, L., “Multidisciplinary Social Entrepreneurship Education Model: If Capitalism, Socialism and Feminism in concert strive, will Social Entrepreneurship thrive?,” NCIIA Annual Meeting, Washington DC, March 2009 • Mehta, K., “Riding in Dala-Dalas with Social Scientists”, part of a panel with Delcore, H. (Panel Leader), Spears, L., “Using Social Science to Unlock the Pan-Human Capacity for Innovation”, NCIIA Annual Meeting, Washington DC, March 2009 • Mehta, K., and Bilen, S., “Championing High-Tech Renaissance: Sensor and Controller System Integration Course” Entrepreneurship Division, American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008 • Mehta, K., “Lessons from the Field: Setting up a Windmill Based Business in Rural Kenya”, NCIIA Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, 2008 • National Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Engineer of 2020. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. • Newberry, B. (2004) The dilemma of ethics in engineering education, Science and Engineering Ethics, 10: 343-351. • Nieusma, D., Riley, D., “Designs on Development: Engineering, Globalization and Social Justice,” Engineering Studies, 29-59, 2010 • Poate, D., “Enhancing the Impact on Rural Poverty through Support to the World Bank’s Portfolio,” Natural Resources Institute, 2005 • Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S.L. (2002) ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, Strategy+Business 6(First Quarter):2 -14. • Riddell, Roger. Does Foreign Aid Really Work? Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2007. • Sehgal, V., Dehoff, K., Panneer, G., “The Importance of Frugal Engineering”, Strategy + Business, http://www.strategy-business.com/article/10201?gko=24674, 01/15/2011 • Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. s.l.: Doubleday Business, 1990. • Stepler, R., Garguilo, S., Mehta, K., Bilen, S., “Applying systems thinking for realizing the mission of technology-based social ventures in Africa”, Systems Engineering Division, ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, 2010 • Von Hippel, E. “Sticky Information” and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation. Management Science, 1994 144 145 “Exampleisnotthemainthingin influencingothers.It’stheonlything.” — Albert Schweitzer EPICS design team from Purdue University and happy owners of a model energy eﬃcient home for Habitat for Humanity 146 Two decades ago I moved from industry to academia to help prepare engineering students for the practice of engineering. My view at that time was that the “proper” way to prepare students was to have them work on industry projects. While I still believe this is valuable, my experiences with service-learning courses have transformed my way of thinking. Serv- ice-learning can provide the environment where students develop the skills needed for an engineering career in today’s global economy, as well as de- veloping students to become engaged citizens and professionals. As an educational researcher, I see where service-learning can move students past thinking of their grades and into thinking like an engineer. Service- learning can also be looked at as ‘sustainable education’ where the prod- ucts of the classrooms are used within local and global communities. I have gotten to the point where I feel emptiness when I teach a class that does not have a service-learning component. With all the benefits that have been articulated in the other chapters of this text and others, there is still a slow rate of faculty involvement in service-learning and community engagement. This chapter lays out some common lessons learned from implementing service-learning in many different courses and contexts. The lessons are not laid out as a step by step process because teaching service-learning, like engineering design, is not a simple linear path. Is now the right time to start? Before we begin talking about how to do service-learning, we want to have you reflect on why you might want to integrate service into your portfolio of work and consider how it will fit. Service-learning can be an amazing experience, both for the faculty and the students. However, most research indicates that service-learning efforts require an increased time William Oakes, PhD Purdue University CHAPTER 7 LearningThroughService:BestPractices commitment on the part of faculty (and often of students as well). For the faculty member, this may entail interfacing with the community to determine project potential, identifying community resources and cham- pions, seeking funding opportunities to support the project, travel logis- tics, and so on. For the student, very often the passionate response to empowering the student to make a difference in someone’s life results in a significant time commitment being made. One item to consider in your service-learning approach is how this effort will fit with your other teaching and research responsibilities in terms of time required. This is especially true if you are a pre-tenure faculty member. Ask yourself how this effort would count toward promotion and tenure. If the answer is not at all, wait until you are tenured or look for ways to integrate the work in a way that promotes your career. An example of this is integrating the service learning efforts into re- search proposals, such as for the National Science Foundation (NSF), which requires an education and outreach component for all research pro- posals. Service-learning can be that component and can add value to any proposal. Research has shown that service-learning aligns with efforts to attract and retain diverse students, so these approaches can add value to the proposals. Programs such as the EPICS Program at Purdue 1 and the SLICE program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell 2 have been funded by NSF. Linking to a model that has been funded by the NSF brings benefits to such a proposal. If your research can align with serv- ice-learning, such activities can be a way to engage undergraduates in the activities. Another way to align with the institutional reward structure is pub- lishing your service-learning work. This is a valid form of scholarship in many institutions and is a very satisfying and worthwhile endeavor. Within each of the projects you may facilitate, there may be opportunity for you to research both technological aspects of the design as well as the pedagogy used when administering the project and assessment results. Outlets for publishing the results of your work are growing through both journals and professional societies. The American Society of Engineering Education, for example, recently created a service-learning division (called the Community Engagement in Engineering Education) which explicitly 147 sponsors sessions on engineering service-learning at the ASEE annual con- ference. There are several journals that take service-learning research and exemplars of practices. These include: 1. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship 3 2. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 4 3. The Journal for Civic Commitment 5 4. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 6 5. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 7 6. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 8 7. Advances in Engineering Education 9 Conferences and other prominent forums for presenting the results of research and exemplars of practice include: 1. National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) annual conference 10 2. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference 11 3. ASME/IEEE’s Engineering for Change 12 4. IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference 13 5. EPICS Engineering Service-Learning Conferences 14 A successful service-learning experience not only enhances student learning and provides opportunities for research and subsequent publi- cations, but it also allows for marketing and promotional opportunities by the department, college and university. Corporate, individual, and foundation donors typically view such undertakings very favorably. Se- curing external funding is another way to link the work into the institu- tional reward structure. For curriculum funding, the National Science Foundation has a program entitled “Transforming Undergraduate Edu- cation in Engineering, Science, Technology and Mathematics (TUES for short) 15 . This program has tracks to fund small grants that take a suc- 148 cessful NSF funded model and adapts it to another context and institu- tion. As mentioned previously, programs such as EPICS 1 and SLICE 2 meet those criteria in engineering. Other funding opportunities include: 1. National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA) annual conference 2. USDA 3. EPA P3 Program If it does not make sense now, remember that the work will still be there when the timing is right. Too many valuable colleagues have been burned out or had to change jobs too soon. Make sure that you are start- ing this when it is appropriate for your career and your personal life. It is incredibly rewarding but you still only get 24 hours in a day, even if you are doing service-learning. Where to do the Service-Learning, in a class or outside of a class? One of the first questions you might pose is where to integrate the service and how to link it to learning. Many models integrate service di- rectly into courses while others use extra- or co-curricular models to do service projects that promote learning. If your primary goal is the service project, then considering an extracurricular model may be best. If the motivation is to use service-learning as pedagogy to teach something, then a course-based approach may be best. We will explore both. Course-based approaches range from a project embedded within an existing course to a dedicated service-learning course. Many courses and topics could benefit from inclusion of a project that provides a hands- on application to the theory of the course. Service-learning can provide just that. The most extensive example of a college implementing service- learning projects across multiple engineering courses is the SLICE initia- tive at the University Massachusetts-Lowell 2,16 . Models that have worked successfully include substituting a lab, a hands-on project, or a paper for the service-learning project. In all cases, the service-learning project is used to introduce or reinforce concepts already taught in the course. 149 The service-learning project can be required for all students in the class or as an option. When starting a service-learning project, using a pilot group with a voluntary option can work well. You can control the number of students and start with volunteers who would likely be more motivated. There are very successful models of having a voluntary serv- ice-learning project as an option for experienced faculty. There are advo- cates for both required and voluntary projects and both are valid approaches. A more ambitious approach is to convert an entire course to a serv- ice-learning endeavor. The most common ways this has been done in en- gineering are in introductory courses or in design courses. Introductory courses can use service-learning as a way for students to learn about their discipline and provide powerful experiences for students to explore their future discipline in a way that is consistent with approaches cited as ways to attract and retain a more diverse student population 17-19 . In design courses, service-learning provides a context with real users and constraints and allows students to learn design through a human-centered approach. A third version for curricular integration is a service-learning pro- gram. An example of this is the EPICS Program at Purdue University 20,21 . EPICS is a set of design courses that draws students from multiple disci- plines. The EPICS Program manages the service-learning projects that span multiple semesters and even years. The staff of the EPICS Program manages the community partnerships, the design curriculum, and course infrastructure, including assessment. The idea is that the directors and staff of the program handle the overhead that goes with service-learning thus allowing faculty to participate at a lower level of time and commit- ment, making it easier for more faculty to participate. Extra- and Co-Curricular Service Experiences There are many opportunities for engineering students to con- tribute to many service projects. If the projects do not easily fit into courses, they can be managed outside of the curricular structure. There are umbrella organizations that can help facilitate projects. Some use the term “service-learning” when engaging students in extracurricular proj- ects. Many of the same considerations afforded course-based projects are 150 given to extracurricular projects, including reflection activities, to draw out the learning. The advantage of implementing service projects in an extracurricular fashion includes the freedom to allow projects to go where they need to based on the project requirements. Students can be given significant leadership to drive the projects. Some faculty see the extracurricular path as a way to start service projects and to gain experience and then to move the experiences into the curriculum. There are some successes with this path but the author rec- ommends if the intention is to integrate into courses - to start there. There are many examples when service learning efforts begin outside of a class, and when other faculty see the effort as being outside of a class, it can actually be a barrier to moving it into classes. A model that is in between courses and extracurricular is co-curricular, where project experiences go along with classes but are not part of the tra- ditional class. Some examples include extracurricular organizations collab- orating with classes. Some faculty will work with students in a student organization to handle issues not appropriate in the courses. For example, a capstone design course may be working on a project that also needs money to implement their design. The fundraising would not be appropriate for the capstone design course so that is done by the student organization. An- other approach is to have an experience that is beyond the course but builds on the course experience. At the University of Sherbrooke 22 , a first-year design course designed toys for children with disabilities. The course had time to develop prototypes but they were not ready for the children. The students were offered an opportunity to take the prototypes and make them ready for the children and then to work with the children as volunteers after the course ended. This extended the design experience for the students and offered a direct connection to the community. Learning in Service-Learning When starting to plan to implement service-learning, it is important to start with the learning that is expected from the students. This is es- sential when planning for a course-based approach but is also vital for a co-curricular or extracurricular implementation strategy. Getting students engaged in a service experience that is related to their disciplines has many 151 benefits and the opportunities for service to help others are incredible. However, when we place the service opportunities within the offerings of the university, we must be cognizant of how these fit into the learning objectives and expectations for the university. For courses, this is essential. As faculty, we are charged with main- taining the academic integrity of the curriculum. Service-learning is a powerful pedagogy for learning but when service is placed into courses just for the service experience and without clear learning objectives or clear paths to connect with the core objectives of the courses, it can actually di- lute the expected learning for the courses. There are many instances across many disciplines where well-meaning faculty have put service into courses that are not directly connected to the learning of the courses. This invari- ably creates problems and results in a backlash against service-learning. Aligning service-learning efforts with course learning objectives is relatively easy. Simply ask how the service experience will enhance the learning objectives of the course you are considering. If you cannot an- swer this, then that service opportunity is not appropriate and you are better off not doing it. You must be able to make the direct connection with the learning objectives and the service to explain to faculty colleagues and to the students themselves. There are many opportunities to do this. One of the most straight- forward is when the service experience is an application of the course con- tent. For example, students in a dynamics class might do safety analyses of local playground equipment. They would use the knowledge from the class to model the motion of the children. The service component might include local education or a report or presentation to local government agencies. A class on structures might design a bridge. A class on com- puting might create programs that could be used by local organizations. Sometimes, learning objectives may have to be broadened to ac- commodate the service experience. Caution must be taken to not move them too far, but this is easily done by engaging faculty colleagues as sounding boards. I integrated service-learning into a first-year course once and had to expand the learning objectives. The course had many sections that all had common content and two projects during the semes- ter. The learning objectives for the projects were very specific to the tra- 152 ditional projects. We rewrote the objectives together with the other fac- ulty to be more general so they were applicable to a larger range of projects including service-learning, but did not change the intent of the objectives. Broadening allowed service-learning projects to be used as a substitute with clear goals that aligned with the other sections. If an existing course is not the right place for service learning, and you are considering creating a new course or doing the service as a co- or extra- curricular experience, you should also consider how the service-learn- ing can promote the broader goals of the university, college, or department. Creating a course or series of courses that align with the broader goals of the institution increases the likelihood that you are creating something that will be sustainable even after you depart. To do this, each, or at least many, of the stakeholders will need to have their needs addressed. A first step in this process is to identify the stakeholders and to make a list of their goals and needs. Identify how your effort helps to meet goals and needs for each of the stakeholders. This requires preparation of a kind of “eleva- tor speech” for each group of stakeholders. Engaging the stakeholders or representatives in this process can be a way of building advocates. This may involve faculty, administrators, students, alumni, or corporate partners as well as the community you will be engaging. In addition to addressing needs, this process can also help to identify potential barriers and hurdles. Engaging skeptics in the process can disarm them. An example of meeting needs is the linking of service-learning with meeting the ABET objectives. Service-learning fits very well with many of the ABET criteria. The reflective component of service-learning pro- vides a vehicle to document the learning in outcomes that are often chal- lenging in traditional engineering courses. Service-learning is often linked with the professional skill objectives, e.g. teamwork, ethics, social context - but do not shy away from including the technical or disciplinary objec- tives as well. Having students apply their classroom knowledge to a unique problem is a powerful learning opportunity for the technical as well as the professional skills. Too often, service-learning practitioners move to the “professional” skills (sometimes called the “soft” skills) too quickly or exclusively and this does a disservice to the power of the learn- ing experience. Professional skills are a valid learning experience but they don’t have to stop there. 153 154 Projects and Partnerships Service-learning requires partnerships with the community, whether it is a local, regional, or global project. To be successful with community engagement, think of the community as a partner and not just a place- ment for the student projects. These partnerships should involve benefits for you, your students, and the community and its citizens. A common term in the community engagement literature is “reciprocal”. Reciprocal means that there are mutual benefits and respect for all parties. You and the students will gain from the learning opportunity. How will the com- munity gain? If the goal is for a tangible project to be delivered to the community, there are implications. If the community is used as a context for the learning - that needs to be made clear. There are real opportunities to make a difference in the community through engagement but it takes planning and collaboration. Take time to learn about the partners. Treat them with respect and be honest with them. If there are things that you don’t have figured out, let them know. They won’t think less of you; in fact, they will find it refreshingly honest. They know what we are trying to do and can be great resources and part- ners but we need to treat them with respect. The easiest way to do this is to tell them you want to be partners and to learn from them. Ask questions of them and listen to what they say. Take time to build a relationship with your community contact(s). This will pay dividends during the project work and it will be personally rewarding. Where do I find them? Getting started can seem challenging, but let me assure you that once you get engaged with the community, partnership opportunities will be coming out of the woodwork. You need to prime the pump. One place to look is on your own campus to see if there is a service-learning office. If there is not, is there a volunteer bureau that places student vol- unteers or a community relations office? These would also have contacts you can speak with or you can send a call for projects through. Talk to faculty colleagues. You may have colleagues that are engaged in the community. Starting a project in an area of interest to a colleague also offers the opportunity to engage her or him too. There are meetings locally of directors of agencies, for example United Way meetings. Leah Jamieson and Ed Coyle made one presenta- tion at a United Way directors meeting and they left with more than 20 project ideas to start the EPICS Program 21 . Whether you are sending out a call or making a presentation, come with some ideas as examples. The community really doesn’t know what we can do and they don’t know what level your students are at or their particular set of expectations. I recommend that you include: 1. Academic year of the students 2. Capabilities of the students, what they have learned so far 3. Expectations of the course/service experience – how many hours, how many people 4. Deadlines and constraints, when will students do the service, when will they be done. Project ideas can be found at in texts 23, 24 , the Campus Compact website 25 , Service-learning clearinghouse 26 , EPICS 1 , and SLICE 2 . Global projects ideas can be found at your office for international programs, Engineers Without Borders 27 , Engineers for a Sustainable World 28 , and Engineering World Health 29 . You will likely find multiple options to pursue and need to choose the best one. Choose the partner or partners carefully. Consider how each opportunity aligns with your goals for the students and yourself. The Purdue EPICS Program uses four key selection criteria: a. Significance b. Level of Technology c. Expected Duration d. Community Partner Commitment Partner commitment is an important criterion - especially when be- ginning. Finding partners that you can work with and who understand what you are trying to do will provide you with allies as you learn how to 155 make this work. You want to start with a high probability of success and selecting an initial partner or set of partners makes this more likely. As you develop experience and expertise, you can move to projects that may have more significance and are riskier for success, but start with success stories that you can share. You are building for the long haul. Preparing the Students For the students to be effective, they must understand the commu- nity, the partner, and the culture in which the project will be undertaken. This likely requires that students undergo training before they come in contact with the community or project, as well as during the project. This is true whether it is a local or international project. This presents a challenge for many of us in engineering, but also an opportunity to reach out to others on campus. The reaction is almost always positive when engineering faculty seeks assistance from others in the areas of culture and diversity needed for such training. That is when the relationships are treated as reciprocal. Ask for expertise and help cre- ating the experience. Allow your colleagues to bring in ideas on how to enhance the experience for your students. Identify together what are the issues needed for the student. Engage the community partner together when possible. Often, the community partners have expertise to help prepare the students. Sometimes activities can be integrated into the project work that will help equip the students. This may include having students observe the community or the organization you are working with. Perhaps inter- views could be done. These are techniques used in human-centered de- sign processes that have been shown to lead to more effective designs as well as providing students with an opportunity to learn about the com- munity and the context. Preparing students for local projects often presents a challenge in that students do not think that they need it. If designing for someone with a disability, the students need to learn about the disability and learn about the stakeholders, such as parents and caregivers. What can they learn from them? International projects are typically easier to get the students to see 156 157 that they need preparation, but there is often more to prepare for. Issues of language and culture need to be addressed as well as issues related to travel. We have to walk a balance of motivating the students of the needs of the community we are serving but also helping the students to see the rich expertise and culture of those areas. This is a challenge and is ap- proached more effectively as a team. Reaching out to colleagues from other disciplines or in international programs is a very worthwhile effort and helps to build bridges within the institution, which will help in the sustainability of your efforts. Share expectations with the community An important part of a reciprocal partnership is to set clear expec- tations so all parties are clear when they start. This is especially true for service-learning. It is beneficial to write down your expectations. LSU has a faculty handbook and an example of a faculty/community partner form as an example. 30 You want to be clear on the roles and your expectations. What do you expect from the community and what should they expect from you? Some example questions to consider: 1. Do you need the community members to meet with the students? How often, when and where (on campus or in the community)? It is important to have the students meet with the community members early in the process. If a face to face meeting is possible, it can be done on campus or at the community. For local service projects, it is important to have the students see, and if possible, ex- perience the context they will work with. Having students do work with the organization as volunteers can benefit their engineering work and give them a chance to get to know the organization. If it is not possible to be there, set up a call or on-line communication so they can be introduced to the partners. It is important for you to be there with the students for the first communication so they can hear the expectations from you and the partners. 2. Will the students be in the community? How often, for how long and when? When they are in the community who will supervise them? Having students experience the community they are working with is important but also presents challenges. Students need clear guidelines and expectations for when they are in the community. Developing a code of conduct with your community partner that is given to the students can be helpful, both in building your part- nership with the community and for the students. Do not assume that the students will know how to act. Be explicit on expectations. This is especially true when partnering with a different culture, do- mestically or abroad. Students will benefit from an introduction to the community, its needs, and culture. Work with your com- munity partner to develop training and appropriate reflection ac- tivities for the students. When they are in the community, who will be with them and who will supervise them? Be explicit and as de- tailed as you can. For international travel, it is common that students visit the site when they have completed the project to deliver or install the project. It can radically change the way the students approach the project if at least some visit the location before the project begins or early on. Consider taking a leadership group if it is not possible to take all of the students early on. Carefully consider the prepara- tion of the students before travelling and make sure that you have the appropriate travel arrangements, visas, appropriate shots and medicines, and appropriate institutional approval. These all take time so plan well ahead. 3. Is transportation needed for the students? Are there visas or other arrangements needed? How far is the community and will the students need trans- portation? This can be another criterion when selecting partners. The author used the criterion for first-year projects that partners needed to be along the bus lines accessible by students so they could get to the organizations. Some students may have access to cars. It is important to check with your campus on their policy for trans- 158 porting students for service-learning classes. If your campus does not have a policy for service-learning classes, you may need to get approvals. The university’s risk management office should be con- sulted. At some campuses, they treat a service-learning class like a semester-long field trip and give a blanket approval for the semester. For international trips, you need to insure that passports and appropriate visas are taken care of. Do not assume the students have passports and give them enough time to get them. Also insure that all appropriate shots and medications have been taken care of for the students. Working with an international travel office on your campus can be invaluable. 4. How will you and your students communicate with the community members? Do you need a central point of contact? Arrange with your partner how they will communicate with you and with your students. How frequently and by what means? If they are local, will they come to campus or will the students visit face to face? Can they use email or phone calls? There are some great video systems that use the internet to provide video confer- ences. Be explicit on when they would like to be contacted. Stu- dents tend to work on a 24/7 schedule and it is surprising the expectations they can have. Some partners like having a single point of contact with the students. Creating a liaison position that is in charge of the communication of the team or class is a way to create a leadership position and can serve the community partner. 5. How will expenses need to be handled? Who is responsible for what expenses? At the start of the partnership, be clear on who is responsible for any expenses. Does the community partner need to cover any expenses during the development of the project or for maintenance or service of the project? Do not assume that they can or cannot afford something. Be explicit and ask. This is part of the partner- ship. Will the students be expected to cover any expenses? If the students are expected to cover some costs, make sure that the ap- 159 proach is consistent with the institutions policies and be clear to the students at the start. 6. What will be the result of the service-learning? What will the commu- nity receive and when will they receive it? What will be the result of the project? If you are doing this as part of the course, include the expectations of what may or may not happen. Be realistic with your partner, it will build trust. If the goal is to have students complete a project, talk through what is the like- lihood they will complete it and what will happen if they do not. There are many situations where faculty have planned to complete projects, promised the community and the students came close but didn’t quite finish and the community members never received any- thing. The partners want to have a clear idea. Some programs have student pick up projects from the previous semester that are not fin- ished and complete them. Be clear and honest with the community. If the project is being done far away from your campus, con- sider the logistics of the project development and delivery of the actual project. How will the materials or finished project be transported. Will the partner need to assist? Is there preparation that is needed in advance of the delivery and, if so, who will be responsible for that? Be clear, detailed and honest with the community. Most communities just want a clear picture of what they are engaging in and what to expect. They must choose whether it is worth it for them to engage with you and the honest assessment will allow and empower them to do just that. 7. How will issues of liability (both for students in the community and for projects) be handled? Liability is a real issue and needs to be considered. At some campuses, fear of liability stops service-learning, but it does not have to. There are ways to handle it but it must be addressed. As part of the initial partnership discussions, talk about how to handle the product liability of what will be delivered. For simple, domestic projects, a hold harmless agreement can be handled. This should 160 161 be approved by your institution and also by the partner. Make sure that the executive director and/or the board of the agency has ap- proved the agreement. To be legal, it must be approved and signed by an authorized person at the agency. For international projects, check with the international office or with local agencies to find the equivalent forms to approve. For larger or more complex projects, your students may need approval of professional engineers. Their work may be the input for the professional engineers. There are models where assistive technology projects done by the students are reviewed or even finished by professionals. A house design may be given to an architecture firm to be approved or modified before con- struction begins. The student product may not be the finished proj- ect but a prototype and initial design. If you will take pictures of students or community members and use them on a website or in publications, you need to get per- mission. Including a photo release as part of the course paperwork is an easy way to get this done for your whole class. Student liability is another set of liabilities to consider. Does your campus require approvals to take students off campus? Almost all have ways to handle study abroad trips or field trips. You may need to have students approved using these mechanisms. For local service-learning courses, some institutions have instructors complete field trip forms for the entire semester so students are covered the same as if they were on a field trip. For international travel, many institutions have a procedure to approve travel abroad and make sure that you follow their procedure. Check if the location is on a watch list for the U.S. Department of State. Beyond liability is the issue of student safety. Whether it is a local project or international, service-learning opportunities can lead to students being in situations that are not safe. We are responsible for the safety of the students and must plan carefully through any travel to insure that they will be safe. There are more than enough opportunities for students in locations that are safe. 8. Are there any issues regarding intellectual property? Many projects develop innovative solutions to meeting a com- munity need and can result in intellectual property. Talk with your own institutional office concerning how they handle student devel- oped intellectual property and include your community partner in the discussions. If something results from the partnership, include the community members as co-developers if they have contributed. 9. How will the community be engaged in the learning? Will they partic- ipate in reflection? Will they need to review any student work? Will they need to complete evaluations? At the start of the partnership, be clear what you would like from the partners involvement and what you would like them to do as part of the learning experience. Ask them what they are com- fortable with and discuss your ideas for the learning components. What are their expectations of involvement? Would you like them to complete evaluations for the project, for the class or on individual students? Show them the evaluations you would like to use and ask for their feedback. Be strategic and respectful of their time. Will they have enough contact with individual students to evaluate them or should they evaluate an entire team or class? One approach for student evaluations is to have the partners evaluate an entire class or team and give them the option of identifying students that stood out (good or bad). Be specific about how the partners should handle assignments from the students. For example, set a guideline when the partners should respond to the students. The students may have the expecta- tion that they can send an evaluation to complete or a report to read and have it returned that day. Discuss with the partners what is rea- sonable. For example, 72 hour turn around for anything sent by the students. Give the community partner permission to stay within that guideline, even if students wait until the last minute. Telling the com- munity partners what your expectations are is important and if you tell them that you do not expect them to accommodate students who procrastinate, it will give them permission to do so and reduce frus- 162 tration with you, your students and the institution. The community members can be great resources for reflection activities and class discussions. Talk to them about how to prepare students for the work and the community they will work with. They may have programs or approaches they use already and can lead dis- cussions or provide materials for you to use with your class. Make sure that they know how you will prepare them for the experience. 10. Be ready to be the bad cop. Do not make the community members be the “bad cop”. Protect the community members from pressure from the students. Your role as the faculty leader is to oversee the project and the stu- dent work. If something needs to be addressed, make sure that the communication lines are open with the partner so they can let you know and you can address it with the students. Multidisciplinary Participation In addition community partners, service-learning can require ad- ditional partnerships on campus. One area that is common is the need to make the effort truly interdisciplinary. In engineering, this too often implies two engineering majors working together. If your projects are en- gaging people in the community, locally or globally, having students who think about, and can provide experience with, the community will be helpful or in many cases necessary. Creating interdisciplinary partnerships is similar to community partnerships. It starts with a relationship. The EPICS Program at Purdue enrolls nearly 400 students per semester and draws from more than 70 majors. They have learned that to make inroads across campus, time needs to be invested to talk about the opportunities and to listen to the needs of colleagues across campus. Securing the cross-disciplinary participation can be accomplished several ways, including: a. Inviting faculty from other disciplines into your classroom as guest lecturers, 163 b. Team teaching a course with colleagues from those other disciplines, c. Incorporating cross-listed course numbering to encourage student enrollment, or d. Embedding portions of the project into other classes as part of their project-based curriculum. Another method is to connect separate classes across disciplines. An excellent example has been developed at Penn State as the ‘eplum’ model, in which the core project team is tasked with the design of solu- tions to problems in host communities, but portions of the effort are em- bedded in pertinent ‘other’ classes. Often that means the course has perhaps 40 students enrolled, but pieces of the projects are embedded in 3-4 other course, increasing participation in the project to well over 400 each semester. When engaging students from other disciplines, make sure that you do not set up unintentional barriers, such as the language used in the class. For instance, the Purdue EPICS Program uses the ABET outcomes as a guide for assessment - but they are specific to engineering. The list of outcomes that the students see was changed slightly but very signifi- cantly by replacing words such as “engineering” and “technical” with “in your discipline” and “disciplinary”. In this way, students can apply their own discipline or major to the outcomes. They read the outcomes from their own perspective. This means that they need to be evaluated based on these criteria too, which requires some faculty training and calibration but has been very effective. Meeting Student Needs and Expectations One may think that altruism on the part of students is the primary reason many choose to participate in some form of ‘service’ – whether it be course-based or extracurricular. Research shows a much broader set of reasons. One study on why women participated in a service-learning class showed that the main reason was for the women to gain engineering experience. The context of the projects clearly played a significant role in choosing to participate, but the experience was the main reason. Many 164 students enroll in a service-learning experience for altruistic reasons, while others do so to gain experience and learn, and still others to make their resume look good. This is not necessarily bad but can provide challenges. One should keep this diverse set of interests and motivations when re- cruiting students. One best practice is to have a way students can share their expecta- tions when they start. This can help to align goals and it can also help to set appropriate goals and expectations for all. Some students will enroll with different goals than one would expect. For example, this semester I had a computer student who enrolled in a service-learning design class explicitly so that he could do something other than coding. In the sharing of goals and expectations, he shared that he wanted to build something and have significant experience in doing so. We had him slotted as the webmaster and programmer. Good thing we asked! Service-learning projects require diverse students from many disci- plines. When developing a design for a village in another country, the social and cultural context has to be integrated into the work and this re- quires students from outside of engineering. Truthfully, almost any real project that will be deployed and used needs students from outside of en- gineering. This can be a challenge to manage. Just as we stereotyped the computer engineering student, faculty and students alike will stereo- type each other at the start. Have time to share and calibrate what every- one’s expertise, expectations, and aspirations are for the project and their work together. Our goal is to harness the students’ energy to develop their profes- sional and disciplinary skills; to change the way they look at the world, their profession and the connection between them; and to make them better citizens. The students who signed up just to enhance their resumes are some who have the greatest potential for change. Be clear with ex- pectations but open to the diverse set of students. Recruiting Students Consider how you will attract the type of students and the numbers that you need for the project. It can be very frustrating to select a com- munity partner and not have enough students to work on their project. 165 Mass emails can attract students if you are allowed to send them. Social media, especially driven by students, can be a powerful tool. Some expe- rienced students, and their faculty visit strategic classes and make short presentations. It can be helpful to have a small handout for students to take with them. Academic advisors can be strong advocates, especially when attracting students from other majors. We host luncheons for ac- ademic advisors each semester to update them on what we are doing and who we are looking for. Many students report that they enrolled because “their advisor recommended it”. Some faculty have found that ‘callout meetings’ where students can see what they will be doing, are effective. Events can be great but take effort and money. Industry Partnerships I did a service-learning workshop a number of years ago and a man- ager from a large defense contractor participated for the whole day. He had come as part of the introductory gathering to say a few words about how much their company valued students with these kinds of experiences. It surprised everyone that he stayed the whole day. At the conclusion of the workshop, one participant asked him why he stayed. He reiterated what he said at the beginning and added that the values that service-learn- ing developed were the exact set of values that his company and others are seeking. A defense contractor no less! This has been reiterated by many companies from many fields. They want students with the kinds of skills service-learning students develop. Service-learning participants are valued by corporate recruiters. Many of our students talk about how their experience helped them get and then succeed at their job. Corporations are interested in service-learning and you can use this to help attract corporate partners to provide expertise, in-kind support, and funding. Just like influencing institutional stakeholders, you should be able to articulate the benefits to the corporate partners. These include the student experience and other attributes such as the higher diversity seen in many service-learning programs. Corporations are also interested in benefitting from positive publicity of the work they support. Some may benefit even from product development or research opportunities. Explore all possibilities but do not assume that the companies have to 166 “get something” for the projects. There are many models where compa- nies sponsor projects in which they have no direct benefit. If your college has companies that sponsor senior design projects, ask for permission to ask them if they would sponsor a service-learning project. Reflection When I started doing service-learning, I read as much as I could and all of the texts talked about the importance of reflection. At that time, there were few examples of engineering service-learning and I thought that the reflection was something that they did in the Humanities and Social Sciences and really didn’t fit with engineering. I learned that I was wrong. Reflection is an important skill and appropriate for all classes. Researchers have found that reflecting on your learning experience improves your learning. Thinking about your thinking, metacognition, enhances learning. All classes, not just service-learning classes, should use reflection to improve learning. In service-learning though, reflection also plays an important role to insure the students learn what you hoped for and don’t leave the experience having learned things you didn’t intend. Reflection is needed to connect the service experiences to the learn- ing you want for the students. I have been amazed at the difficulty stu- dents have connecting service experiences to theoretical or conceptual parts of a course. Students compartmentalize the courses and concepts. We have actually taught them to do this. We cover chapters A, B and C and test them over that. Then we cover chapters D, E and F and test them over those. They will all get tested on the final exam - but not until then. The students use this model with the service-learning and assume that they don’t need to connect it with other parts of the learning experi- ence. The students need help seeing the connection with the service ex- periences and the other course content. Making the connections explicitly through reflection will make these connections. Service-learning offers rich learning opportunities for students, but these are often missed without reflection. Reflection can be used to draw out learning and to capitalize on learning opportunities as they occur. For example, students may be designing something and they have a pres- entation or demonstration and they discover that a feature will not work. 167 Finally, reflection is also a guard against unintended learning. It is wrong to assume that students will learn what we want simply by putting them into new environments. Placing students into a community that has a different culture from theirs may actually reinforce preexisting stereotypes or prejudices if not processed through reflection. This may require activities to prepare students for their culture or context as well as during and after the experience. Having students reflect on their experi- ence in writing or in discussions gives you the opportunity to see what they think they have learned and provides an opportunity for you to cor- rect or address any issues before they leave your class or project. How to do reflection Reflection can be done in different ways. Students can write about what they are thinking or what they experienced. This does not have to be long. Research has found that the length of reflective writing is not as important as being done frequently and intentionally. Short frequent writings are important. A popular method in engineering is to have stu- dents keep a design or lab notebook and to write reflections in the note- book. The notebook keeps other information such as meeting notes, calculations and sketches and can be collected and graded. Some have students keep a blog that can be accessed by the instructor and graded. Reflections can also be done as formal assignments where students write a report or essay that is turned in and graded. In any of these options, students can write freely or they can respond to question prompts that you provide. You can also include readings that they respond to in their reflections. It is important to read the student reflections so that you can see what they are learning or think they are learning. Reflections can also be verbal. Class discussions or small group dis- cussions are effective ways to do reflection. A combination of short writ- ing assignments, followed by small group discussions, are a great way to have students share their experiences. One on one discussion can be a powerful way to have students reflect on their experience. This can be in the form of an exit interview, for example. If you do not feel comfortable leading reflection discussions or mak- ing assignments, look for resources on campus. Does your campus have 168 a center for instructional excellence or faculty development? They can help facilitate. Asking colleagues from Liberal Arts to collaborate on re- flection can be a great way to build bridges between departments. There are many reflection resources on the service-learning clearinghouse and the Campus Compact Website. Assessment: Evaluation and Grading Assessment in service-learning can really be broken down into two categories. The first is grading students if the service-learning is done within a course. The second category is evaluation of the student learning, student experience and the community experience and the impact achieved. Both are important and can be linked. Grading Faculty understand how to grade traditional courses and in service- learning we will use the same or very similar processes. Remember that in any class, grades are given for mastery of course content, and service- learning classes are no different. Grades are not given simply for time spent in service but rather the service is used to allow students to learn the course concepts more effectively. Grades are therefore determined in similar manners to traditional courses. If a service-learning project is placed in a statics class, the majority of the grade will be determined by the exams on the statics topics. For project related experiences, service-learning is really not that different than other project courses. Let me use the first-year project ex- ample mentioned earlier. Part of the class was graded based on exams and homework but there were two projects. In the traditional project, the grades were determined by grading reports, an interim report, and a final, with pre-determined grading rubrics; a demonstration and peer eval- uations. The traditional project’s demonstration was usually some task or contest where the projects were tested to meet the common set of spec- ifications. For the service-learning project, we paralleled the assignments and had an interim and final report that included student reflections. Since the service-learning projects were not all the same, we couldn’t have a contest or common demonstration so we had a poster session with all 169 of the projects. We also included a community partner evaluation as well as the peer evaluation. The key to grading project-based work is to have students generate things that can be graded. Some call them artifacts. These include reports, written reflections, actual project prototypes, and notebooks. If using note- books, consider what your objective is. Years ago, we taught students how to keep a proper notebook that could be used as a legal document. Stu- dents had to write in pen, number and sign pages while not skipping any pages. What we found was that students felt that they were being graded on format and not content. We have gone away from grading on format and allowing students to keep portfolios that include notebooks, three ring binders, blogs or combinations. Interestingly most still keep a notebook but many also use other media. We were looking at the content. With any report, notebook or presentation, grading guidelines need to be determined. Examples include those from the EPICS Program 31 . They were developed by asking faculty and graduate assistants what they thought was an A student, a B student, etc. Some faculty make a class activity into developing the rubrics for the project and this can work well. Ask the students to help determine what an A (Excellent) project would include and how would we know. This has the added benefit of having the students buy into the assessment but it also takes class time. A best practice is to have something due early in the project. This can be a project proposal or a timeline that requires action and engage- ment of the partner in some ways. It is surprising how many students look at the open-ended projects and don’t know how to start. This has to be identified early and having something tangible due and graded is an excellent mechanism to do this. It allows the students to see how things are graded and it allows the instructor to make sure the students or teams have started the project and made contact with the community. Another best practice in a service-learning class is a dry-run grading at the middle of the projects. This has worked in service-learning design courses where the entire course is dedicated to a service-learning project. At the middle of the semester, a mock grading with all of the artifacts can help calibrate students and faculty. It is recommended that students be given a grade and also feedback on what they are doing well and what 170 they need to improve upon. Short interviews are very helpful to allow students to ask questions. Ten to fifteen minutes per student works for most students. For teams, peer evaluations are an excellent tool. In small classes, this can be managed with paper evaluations or assignments that are sent to the instructor. For larger classes, there are on-line tools. One common tool is the CATME system (www.catme.org) which allows teams to eval- uate each other and each member receives feedback from the team in a confidential manner. Tools like these provide the infrastructure to have peer feedback on students. If the service involves specific hours at the community organization, some points could be allocated for the time. This is analogous to giving points for attendance. If attendance could be part of the grade for the class, then this would be appropriate to include in the grade. Evaluations from the community partners can also be factored into the student grades. If the projects are done in teams, it works well to have the partners evaluate the teams and ask if any students stood out, good or bad. That way the partners don’t have to rate each student but they can voice strong feelings one way or the other. Collecting community evaluations can be a challenge. Many partners are busy and it may be de- layed so making the evaluations as short as possible is important. Ask yourself what you will do with the answers and only ask what is vital to the grading or the evaluation of the effort. Online surveys can work. Having the instructors email the evaluations to the partners and have them return by mail can also work. One method was for the instructor to email the forms and provide each team with a paper copy and envelope. The final report was required to be accompanied by either a sealed eval- uation or an email confirmation that it was sent to the instructor. The students were responsible for insuring it was completed. Data from the community partner evaluation will not all go into grading. It can provide you with information to guide the development of the experience. Ask the partners information about the experience. Were they satisfied with the experience? Was communication adequate? How could the program be improved? Ask the partners if they want to continue in future years. One way to make your life easier is to build 171 partnerships that last so you don’t need to find new ones each year. Asking at the end of a successful project is an excellent time or if there were issues that made the experience poor, you have time to address them quickly and maintain the partnership. Assessing the community impact is a challenge but some easy meth- ods include asking how many people were impacted by the project. One can also ask the partners to rate how much benefit they received versus the investment on their part. Gathering data from your class and the project is important when seeking resources to continue the work. Keep records of the number of students and the demographics if possible, including major, year in school, gender, and ethnicity. Also include the average hours spent on the projects per student and the number of community members impacted by the projects. Evaluations from the students are also important. Asking how they felt about the course and the experience provides valuable information. Some ask the students what they learned or what three things they learned from the experience. Keeping quotes from students is also good when looking to advocate for your work. Student learning goes well beyond what they do for their grade. Reflections are an excellent way to capture the broader learning of the students. Having them complete and turn in a final reflection provides a great deal of information for you to assess both their learning and their experience. Posing a series of question prompts works well and provides a framework for their writing. Planning and Implementation Create a structure to support the development of the projects. Whether it is in a class, or as an extracurricular activity, one must set clear expectations for the students. The students should provide ownership of the project but you need to be an advisor or coach. A good coach watches for her or his team to be in trouble and may call a timeout when needed to prevent a bad situation. This is a great analogy for managing the serv- ice-learning projects. You are there to support and encourage. Creating an environment where they will succeed is important. 172 Have the students develop a plan with frequent progress checks or milestones. Have them demonstrate, whenever possible their progress, both on the project and their understanding. When things work well, have the student leaders facilitate meetings and manage the project plan. Students should be reporting, but make sure that you can verify, their progress. It is human nature to wait until the last minute and there is a mind- set that “real engineering” happens when the team stays up for two or three days finishing a project. This is not good design and nor is it good project planning. The work that your students will be doing will be used by the community and it is important that they get it right. Remember that in traditional classes, we have been teaching them that 90% is excel- lent (an A) and 80% is good (B). One of the excellent learning opportu- nities for service-learning is that they have to get it completely right, just like in industry. As their coach or advisor, you have a responsibility to insure that the project is completed as you made a commitment to the community partner when you started the project. Letting students wait until the last minute is a recipe for disaster as we know there will be last minute issues that come up. A good coach puts her or his team in situa- tions to make them successful and that is the art of guiding experiential education and service-learning in particular. In more traditional project- based learning, if the project doesn’t work, the students can learn and we consider it a success. In service-learning, someone is depending on the outcome and while the students may learn, the community does not re- ceive its benefit. It is important when you are starting out with a group of students that you set short-term goals for the students so they can accomplish something tangible and you can assess them and provide feedback so that they can calibrate their expectations. It is helpful to have students who take leadership roles and there are two philosophies with student leaders. One is to assign or elect stu- dents to specific roles, such as team leader, project manager, recorder, fi- nancial officer, etc. When assigning roles it is a good idea to define the roles with a short job description so that the students in those roles and others on the team understand their roles. The other concept for leadership is shared leadership. This method has no formal leader but has roles on the team such as meeting coordina- 173 tor, time keeper, recorder, and encourager. Students rotate roles and each has the opportunity to assume the roles on the team as well as receiving and providing feedback on how they and others did in these roles. Both leadership models have worked on student teams. When starting out, choose a model you are comfortable with. Are you ready? Service-learning can be an amazing experience for both you and the students. It is an adventure and when you start the semester, you really don’t know where it will lead. This can be intimidating, especially when we usually teach classes with well planned syllabi that show exactly where we will be in each class. Life is not like that and the adventure of service- learning will prepare the students for life and the practice of engineering. Get ready to say “I don’t know, but we can find out”. That will happen and it is okay. You are learning together. When you are honest with the students and they see what you are trying to accomplish, they will respond very well. It is refreshing when you are in the role of a coach and fellow learner and not the expert performing in front of class. Having said it is an adventure does NOT mean that you don’t plan. The top three things that are needed when preparing for a service-learning experience are: Planning, Planning and Planning. Plan and be ready to adjust when things arise. Start small and be successful and build on that success. Publish the success. It isn’t research but publications are good at all kinds of institu- tions. Be smart about building institutional support and look for ways to integrate your work in your campus’ initiatives. Make sure it is the right time for you. Service-learning will take more time than a traditional class. If it is not the right time for you per- sonally or professionally, especially if you are pre-tenure, wait and start later. The opportunities will still be there when you are ready. Finally, remember the key word in service-learning is partnerships. You are in partnership with the community and you will learn from them as they will from you. You and your students are doing work WITH them, not for them. Treating them with respect and open communication will be, to paraphrase that famous old movie, the beginning of a beautiful [partnership]. Enjoy. 174 REFERENCES 1 www.purdue.edu/epics (accessed 1/30/12) 2 http://slice.uml.edu (accessed 1/30/12) 3 http://www.ijsle.org (accessed 1/30/12) 4 http://ginsberg.umich.edu/mjcsl (accessed 1/30/12) 5 http://www.mesacc.edu/other/engagement/Journal (accessed 1/30/12) 6 http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/current.htm (accessed 1/30/12) 7 http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/index (accessed 1/30/12) 8 http://jces.ua.edu/ (accessed 1/30/12) 9 http://advances.asee.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 10 http://nciia.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 11 http://www.asee.org/conferences-and-events/conferences (accessed 1/30/12) 12 https://www.engineeringforchange.org/home (accessed 1/30/12) 13 http://www.ieeeghtc.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 14 https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICSU (accessed 1/30/12) 15 http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5741 (accessed 1/30/12) 16 Duffy, J., Barington, L.,, Moeller, W., Barry, C., Kazmer, D., West, C., Crespo, V., “Service-Learning Projects in Core Undergraduate Engineering Courses”, International Journal for Service-Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2008 17 Rosser, S. V. . Female-Friendly Science. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, 1990 18 Rosser, S. V. Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering. Teachers College Press, New York, NY. 1995 19 Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press,1997 20 Coyle, E. J., Jamieson, L. H., Oakes, W. C , “Integrating Engineering Education and Community Service: Themes for the Future of Engineering Education”, Jour- nal of Engineering Education, Vol. 95, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 7-11. 21 Coyle, Edward J., Jamieson, Leah H., Oakes, William C, “EPICS: Engineering Projects in Community Service”, International Journal of Engineering Education Vol 21, No. 1, Feb. 2005, pp. 139-150. 22 Michaud, Francois, Clavet, André, Lachiver, Gérard, and Mario, Lucas, Designing Toy Robots to Help Autistic Children - An Open Design Project for Electrical and Computer Engineering Education”, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO, June 2000 23 Tsang, E. (Ed.). Projects that matter: Concepts and models for service-learning in engineering. Washington DC: AAHE, 2000. 24 Lima, M.and Oakes, W. Service-learning: Engineering in Your Community, Great Lakes Press, 2005. 25 http://www.compact.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 175 26 http://www.servicelearning.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 27 http://www.ewb-usa.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 28 http://www.eswusa.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 29 http://www.ewh.org/ (accessed 1/30/12) 30 http://appl003.lsu.edu/slas/ccell/facultyinfo.nsf/$Content/Handbook+for+ Faculty?Open Document (accessed 1/30/12) 31 https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICS/Resources/Grading (accessed 1/30/12) 176 177 “Youmustlookwithinforvalue,but mustlookbeyondforperspective.” — Denis Waitley Students from the University of the Valley of Guatemala-Altiplano learn to maintain a manual backpack spraying device to enhance community crop production. 178 The authors of the preceding chapters were all from universities located in the United States and have been engaged in Learning Through Service (LTS) activities, both domestically and internationally, from that perspec- tive. It is worthwhile for the reader to obtain some insights on service learning in engineering from others who engage in similar work but are located at universities around the world. What types of programs are being employed by universities outside of the United States? How are they structured? What have they found to be successful over the years, and what suggestions do they have to enhance LTS programs overall? Four universities who engage in LTS efforts are highlighted in this chapter: De la Salle University and Mapúa Institute of Technology (MIT), both in Manila, Philippines, The University of the Valley of Guatemala (UVG), Guatemala City, Guatemala; and the University of Pretoria (UP), Pretoria, South Africa. A special thinks to ASME for their assistance in identifying universities for inclusion in this chapter. The universities themselves are briefly described in the following paragraphs followed by an elaboration and description of the programs they offer in service learning in engineering. A comparative summary of the programs concludes the chapter. Manuel C. Belino, PhD Mapúa Institute of Technology Manila, Phillipines Martina Jordaan, PhD University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa Carlos R. Paredes, PhD University of the Valley of Guatemala Guatemala City, Guatemala CHAPTER 8 InternationalPerspectivesonServiceLearning University Descriptions De la Salle University, Philippines De La Salle College was founded in 1911 when the Brothers of the Christian Schools opened a school in the Manila. The academy grew in 1917 when the school was granted a charter authorizing it to confer an Associate in Arts degree, and again in 1930, when the College was au- thorized to confer the degrees of Bachelor of Science in Education and Master of Science of Education. During the Second World War, the Col- lege grounds were seized by the Japanese occupation forces and made into defense quarters. Classes continued during the war years, but academics suffered from a greatly reduced curriculum as did the welfare of the Broth- ers. On February 12, 1945, a band of Japanese soldiers massacred 16 Brothers and several families who had taken refuge with them in the Col- lege Chapel along with many others who were taken prisoner. Home from concentration camps at the end of the war, the Brothers resumed classes in July 1945. During the following years, the undergraduate schools of Engi- neering (1947), Arts and Sciences (1953), Education (1959), Industrial Technology (1973), and Career Development (1980) were established. Also established were the graduate schools of Business Administration (1960) and Education (1963). As a result of the outstanding academic and professional contributions the school had made to Philippine pri- vate education, De la Salle College was elevated to the status of De la Salle University in 1975. The College of Industrial Technology was in- tegrated with the College of Engineering in 1979 as an Engineering Technology Program. The Bachelor of Science in Computer Science Program was started in 1981 upon the organization of the Center for Planning, Information, and Computer Science. Beginning 1984-1985, the Computer Science Program was spun off as a program under the College of Computer Studies. Mapúa Institute of Technology, Philippines Mapúa Institute of Technology (MIT) is a non-sectarian institute for higher learning and a pioneer in technical education in the Philip- pines. The institute initially started out as a night school with 80 students 179 enrolled in civil engineering and architecture. Today, MIT is the largest engineering school in the Philippines with at least 15,000 students. MIT was established in 1925. The Institute is a reputable source of architects, engineers, and sci- ence graduates and constantly produces top caliber graduates in the ar- chitectural and engineering fields. MIT specializes in these fields at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The university also has a wide array of other undergraduate programs, including: civil engineering, elec- trical engineering, industrial engineering, as well as computer science, multimedia arts and sciences, information technology, accounting, entre- preneurship, business management, hotel & restaurant management, and nursing. The Institute has been granted Level IV Accredited Status to its Civil Engineering program by the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities Commission on Accreditation (PACUCOA). It is one of the first engineering programs to be accorded such status. In addition, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) recently recognized Mapúa’s Mechanical Engineering (ME), Computer Engineering (CpE) and Elec- tronics Engineering (ECE) programs as Centers of Development for En- gineering (COD). Mapúa is also the first Philippine and East Asian educational institution to have ABET certification, judging the Institute to be on par with US-based colleges and universities. Universidad del Valle de Guatemala The Universidad del Valle de Guatemala - UVG (University of the Valley of Guatemala) is a private, not-for-profit, secular university located in Guatemala City, Guatemala. It was founded in 1966 by a private foun- dation which had previously overseen the American School of Guatemala. UVG operates three campuses: Central Campus in Guatemala City; Al- tiplano Campus in Sololá serving Mayan communities on a former mil- itary base; and South Campus serving agricultural communities on Guatemala’s Pacific Coast. At present, the University has over 3,500 stu- dents enrolled at the three campuses. It was the first private university to provide a strong emphasis in technology in the country. Today, what dis- tinguishes UVG from other high-quality Guatemalan universities is its 180 innovative, practical approach to tackling the problem of accessibility to education for the Maya and other rural poor. Prior to 1960, Guatemala effectively had only one university which was the State University, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (USAC). USAC alone offered degrees, including those in engineering, medicine, law, economics, and social sciences. USAC was founded in 1879 and, until 1930, offered a degree program in “Topographic Engi- neering”. In 1930 the name was modified and a degree program in Civil Engineering was subsequently offered. In 1960, private universities were permitted to offer courses for the first time with nearly all of them offering engineering degrees. The University of the Valley of Guatemala was authorized in 1966 and initiated its engineering program within the School of Science and Humanities. Nevertheless, the engineering student population grew ex- ponentially up to the point where they reached 30% of the student body. UVG began awarding engineering degrees in the early 1980’s. With the high number of students enrolled in engineering, it was decided to sepa- rate engineering from Science and Humanities in 2005. The School of Engineering was founded in 2005. UVG strives to produce professionals, trained technicians, and ed- ucators to be responsible problem solvers who can help Guatemala im- prove its education and health care systems; modernize its agriculture and food production systems; manage its priceless natural resources and pro- mote an appreciation for its rich history and cultural diversity; and, secure a strong position in the world economy of the 21st century. UVG cur- rently has nine engineering majors (Food Science; Computer Science and Information, Communication Technologies; Civil; Electronic; Industrial; Mechanical; Mechatronics; Management Science; and Chemical). University of Pretoria The University of Pretoria (UP) is the leading research university in South Africa and one of the largest in the country. The University has seven campuses as well as a number of other sites of operation, such as the Pretoria Academic Hospital. Central administration is located at the Hatfield Campus. UP offers more than 1,800 academic programs in two 181 of the official languages, namely Afrikaans and English. Some programs and modules are offered only in English. In 1996, the University of Pre- toria became the university with the highest research output in South Africa and has maintained this status. The University of Pretoria cele- brated its Centenary in 2008. The academic programs of the University are offered in nine facul- ties, as well as a business school. The faculties comprise a total of 140 de- partments and 85 centers, institutes, and bureaus. UP is at the forefront of tertiary education in the country and collaborates with world-class part- ners to ensure continued excellence in learning and teaching. Program Descriptions De la Salle University The University believes the Christian man and woman will provide needed leadership in the development of the Philippines. The school seeks to develop this leadership quality in its students through a liberal Christian education. Its commitment to this type of education is based on a belief in the importance of Christian values and in the development of a concern for the country’s social and economic problems by its students. Toward this end, the De la Salle University-Manila Values Forma- tion Program PAGKAMULAT (Panlipunang Kamalayan tungo sa Mak- abuluhang Layunin, Aksyon at Tungkulin) was introduced into the College of Engineering (COE) in 1989. The scope of responsibility of the Community Involvement Committee (CIC) of the College was broadened to include the promotion of La Sallian values - thus changing its name to Social Involvement/ PAGKAMULAT (SIPAG) Committee. The committee continued to evolve as the awareness and practice of the professional and ethical responsibility of engineers were integrated in the committee’s work. The integration of such concern is not only due to the increased interest in the study of ethics today, but also the intent to actu- alize the vision-mission of the University and the mission statement of the College. Excerpts from these documents are as follows: …” Inspired by the charism of St. John Baptist de La Salle, the Uni- versity harmonizes faith and life with contemporary knowledge to 182 nurture a community of distinguished and morally upright scholars who generate and propagate new knowledge for human develop- ment and social transformation.” (DLSU- Manila Vision and Mis- sion Statement), …” to nurture technically competent practicing engineers imbued with La Sallian values who will spearhead the technological advance- ment and economic development of the Philippines and the im- provement of the Filipino’s quality of life.” (COE Mission Statement). To reflect this added dimension of the committee, it was re-named “SERVECom” which means Social/ Ethical Responsibility and Values Ed- ucation Committee. SERVECom is a permanent committee in the College of Engineer- ing with a coordinator who reports directly to the Dean. Unlike some of the committees in the College, its Coordinator does not receive any hon- orarium and its membership consists of volunteers representing all the departments and sectors such as faculty, academic service faculty, co- ac- ademic personnel, and undergraduate and graduate students. The com- mittee usually meets once a month or as necessary and is supported by a modest budget in the Dean’s office to cover the meeting expenses and of- fice supplies. Financial resources to support its projects are tapped from the departments, student organizations, the University Center for Social Concern and Action (COSCA), individual donors, government organi- zations (GOs), and non-government organizations (NGOs). The objectives of SERVECom are: 1. to integrate whenever appropriate La Sallian values in the program and activities of the College. 2. to promote the awareness and practice of professional ethics in the College. 3. to promote volunteerism among faculty, students, and staff in the College’s social action activities. 183 4. to tap the expertise of the College in servicing partner schools, communities and /or NGOs. To accomplish these objectives, the committee undertakes the following: 1. To conduct lectures, seminars, or workshops on La Sallian values and professional ethics in engineering. 2. To encourage the COE community to attend religious activities such as retreats, recollection, prayer meetings, Bible studies, etc. 3. To sponsor masses on important occasions in the College and the University. 4. To coordinate with appropriate university units such as Center for Social Concern and Action ( COSCA) and La Sallian Pastoral Office ( LSPO) on community exten- sion projects and Lasallian values integration program and religious activities, respectively. 5. To link-up with Lasallian Outreach & Volunteer Effort (LOVE) and form COE pool of volunteers. 6. To coordinate with external agencies such as GOs and NGOs on possible collaborative social action prospects. 7. To disseminate the activities of the committee through the bulletin boards, newsletter, and internet. Mapúa Institute of Technology The founder of the Mapúa Institute of Technology, Don Tomas Mapúa, envisioned an educational institution that emphasizes the impor- tance of science and technology as well as one that creates an impact on the community and the quality of life of the Filipinos. The legacy of Don Tomas continues as the Institute’s mission embodies it and states: “…the Institute engages in research with high socio-economic impact … and brings to bear humanity’s vast store of knowledge on the problems of in- dustry and community in order to make the Philippines and the world a better place” Similarly, the vision-mission of the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (SMME) puts equal importance to com- munity or extension service as follows: “… undertake community exten- 184 sion projects that uplift the living conditions of the poor and preserve the environment …”. To actualize both the Institute and the School mission, the Office of Social Orientation and Community Involvement Program (SOCIP) directs the extension service activities of the institution. Each school or department renders extension services related to the program, or field of expertise which includes participation by the administration, faculty, sup- port staff, and students. The SMME has identified three extension service projects which we focus on: a) Adopt-an-Engineering-School - an outreach project to a rural public college offering mechanical engineering which involves faculty and student development seminars/work- shops/trainings, sharing the use of the Mapúa’s laboratory facilities, book donation, and assistance to students for their industry internship; b) Welding training program for the out-of-school youth in urban Manila (a program that equips poor young people with employable skills); and, c) Installation of small-scale renewable energy power systems such as micro-wind and micro/pico-hydro-electric plant in the countryside. The community/extension service activities undertaken by both of these academic institutions coincide very well with most companies’ cor- porate social responsibility programs. Some companies have started to partner with our teams on projects such as the development of an electri- cal energy storing see-saw and merry-go-round for an orphanage play- ground. Others believe that such activities/ projects contribute to the character formation of the students, and thus, must be further promoted by the universities. For both academic institutions, financial support for the projects comes from various sources like the school allocated budget, professional societies, civic organizations, government agencies, and industry. The community/extension service activities are undertaken as extra-curricular 185 activities spearheaded by the student organizations or as co-curricular ac- tivities through one- year undergraduate thesis projects. Examples of MIT projects are pico/micro-hydro-electric plants; micro-wind turbine electric plant; and the merry–go–round for an orphanage playground. It must be emphasized that these projects are required for undergraduate students for their thesis project. The theses projects are required for graduation and students receive credit for them. Faculty members are assigned as the- sis mentors/advisers. For DLSU, students receive numerical grades for the project, while MIT assigns a pass/fail grade. However, there are commu- nity/extension service projects undertaken by faculty, non-teaching staff, and students which are not considered curricular but extra-curricular ac- tivities for the students. In addition, neither institution has any certifi- cates, minors, or majors in such disciplines. In both academic institutions, projects undertaken in the commu- nities are covered by a formal contract similar to a Memorandum of Agree- ment (MOA) or an informal Certificate of Commitment (COC). The role and responsibilities of each party are identified and agreed upon. The champions of the project typically include the coordinator of the commu- nity, or the extension service committee and its members along with the student leader of the volunteer teams. It is usually the Barangay Chairman (the local chief of the smallest political unit called ‘’barangay’) or his des- ignated leader who is the champion on the part of the community. Sustainability of the project is always sought. Striving for social sus- tainability, meetings typically are held with various stakeholders prior to the implementation of the project. Community preparation, participa- tion, and involvement are key elements to the success of the project. Be- fore moving forward, the community must have a voice in the project and accept the project, and normally welcomes the team through a cere- mony/ritual of the indigenous people. The relationship between the com- munity and the school nearly always continues even after the completion of the project. A school representative occasionally pays a short visit to the community. An example is used to demonstrate how economic sustainability is incorporated into our projects. In the case of the pico/micro-hydro electric plant installation, community organizers initiate the project by educating 186 the leaders and members of the community as to the nature of the project and the benefits to be accrued. The community must feel comfortable contributing to the effort by contributing a minimal amount of money every month for the operation and maintenance of the plant. The com- munity is advised to be self-reliant with minimal support from the school after the completion of the project. In the future, a cooperative system will be introduced in some communities. From an environmental perspective, the micro-renewable energy systems are by themselves eco-friendly. This is the very reason these proj- ects are readily accepted by the community. Some identified members of the community are trained to operate and maintain the pico/micro-hydro electric plant to ensure technical sus- tainability. This assures the smooth operation of the plant after the com- pletion of the project. However, technical advice from the school experts is rendered whenever needed. The university/institute representative through the College/School/Department community/extension service coordinator conducts an occasional visit to the community or there is in- formal communication between the coordinator and the community le- ader since a relationship has been established in the course of doing the project. Thus, formal and informal communication take place. The in- formal one is often frequent because this communication mode is cultural and the use of cellular phone technology makes it faster and easier. The school sees to it that a number of young faculty are trained to assure the continuity of the project should the senior members resign or retire. Other examples of projects through De la Salle University are the design of low cost transport equipment and agricultural machinery such as mountain buggy, hybrid micro-transporter, electric vehicle, mobile drilling rig, and power-driven stripper harvester with re-thresher and cleaner. The projects mentioned above are not only design projects. Often they provide opportunities to engage in research to enable successful design. So far, we have not encountered any issues related to liability, al- though we believe it is an important consideration. If ever it becomes an issue, this is an item that we will include in the memorandum of agree- ment. Entrepreneurship (technopreneurship) is promoted to mechanical 187 engineering students. They are encouraged to pursue thesis projects that have potential commercial value, but no formal coursework is offered in this area. Once in a while a seminar or a talk on technopreneurship is held for the senior students. The academy is open to offering technopre- neurship as an elective course. Feedback on the projects is obtained from both the faculty and the students through interviews and focused group discussions. The MIT Of- fice for Social Orientation and Community Involvement Program (SOCIP) requires participants in every activity to complete a post- project assessment report. Some of the insights and lessons learned by faculty and student volunteers are captured in remarks such as the following: “Although the project that we did in Ifugao was very basic engi- neering as compared to what we are learning in the classroom, its social impact was very evident as it changed the daily life of the people in the community through the provisions of electricity, a basic need that we enjoy and yet taken for granted.” “It made me feel great as an engineering student to see the joy in the eyes of the people in the community when they saw for the first time lighted bulbs in their households.” “ I appreciated more my chosen profession in the way that I could apply so far what I have learned in engineering to help people, more so, an indigenous community.” “I learned not only engineering stuff in this project but also the rich culture of the upland people in the Philippines.” “It made the students realize how noble the engineering profession is through the accomplishment of such a relevant and meaningful extension service project which does not only improve the human condition but also uplifts the human spirit”. 188 University of the Valley of Guatemala UVG has a project called “Engineering for Life” that partners with communities and seeks to engineer solutions to their day to day problems in health, food security, and economic survival. Engineering For Life is a program within a research project called Centro de Estudios Atitlan (CEAt). This research center started in 2009 as a result of an outbreak of cyanobacteria that polluted the clear water of Lake Atitlan close to the Altiplano Campus. The program seeks to apply engineering techniques to improve the life of the people within the lake basin. For example, biodigestors produce biogas for cooking purposes and the resulting re- duction of deforestation. Water treatment systems are installed to demon- strate to communities the benefits of having such technologies. UVG has also demonstrated how to build macrotunnels (protected agriculture) so they will increase their crop productivity. The overall thrust of the pro- gram is to improve the lives of people by applying cheap and simple en- gineering techniques that can easily be applied by rural population. Many students at UVG enroll in organizations like Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) and develop entrepreneurial programs in the remote areas of Guatemala to benefit the people by improving their income. SIFE is an organization which brings together a diverse network of uni- versity students, academic professionals, and industry leaders around the shared mission of creating a better, more sustainable world through the positive power of business. By contributing their talents to projects that improve the lives of people worldwide, SIFE helps our students envision themselves as powerful forces for change. USAC has offered an extension program from its inception through the “Ejercicio Profesional Supervisado” (EPS). The extension program is a practice period where the senior students must perform service related to their academic discipline in the countryside of Guatemala. The effort is mentored by staff from the USAC. The student is directly involved in applying their degree on behalf of the community. Social entrepreneurship has been part of the curriculum since the early 2000’s and is available to students enrolled in engineering at USAC and most of the private univer- sities, including UVG. Students typically are introduced to entrepreneurial concepts in courses where they are required to present a final project related 189 to starting a business using the product of their design. Slowly, the student communities at USAC and UVG have been fo- cusing their enthusiasm and interests in helping the needy population in the countryside. The EPS students from USAC spend a semester in a rural community assigned by their school. In some cases these communities are very remote and the students live there for the entire term. This is manda- tory. Private universities have not implemented a mandatory EPS. Most private universities are trailing behind USAC and their program with the EPS, but the impact of the work done by the private universities on the communities has been larger and more direct than USAC’s. Extension work is not mandatory at UVG and it is not clocked as part of the curricula. For UVG students, the work done through SIFE and UVG Student Association has generated an enthusiasm that has many students voluntarily doing extension work in areas close by their campus. Since 2009 they have extended their actions to more remote communities travelling sometimes 200 miles to reach them during a weekend work trip. The student enthusiasm is remarkable. USAC’s EPS program is a model program but lacks institutional coordination within the university. For example, engineering students might go to build a health station but the medical school sends their stu- dents to other places. That is why the EPS is described as more of an in- dividual effort by the student and not more of an organized university effort directed to specific communities. Another exciting result of our work is that industry has been slowly adopting a philosophy of increased social responsiveness through their Corporate Social Responsibility Programs. They are becoming much more supportive of such university efforts. They view such programs as a means of improving their image in the community as well as a means to have the graduates gain experience both as an engineer and by assu- ming a role in their Community Social Responsibility Programs. The largest business enterprises have such programs and if their recruits have training and experience in such activities, the effect is improved. For example, Exxon has a program where all their executives help maintain a school. They build walls, paint chairs, and have a much greater impact in the community due to their long term commitment. Perhaps this in- 190 creased corporate interest in social responsibility is due to the efforts un- dertaken in our problem-based classes and communities not relying on free professional services. While industry as a whole though has not yet asked for such train- ing, it is very pleased that our graduates engage in such activities. Nu- merous major business enterprises (Exxon, Cementos Progreso, Pollo Campero, Ingenio Pantaleon) refer to the positive benefits for their firms due to the UVG graduate/trainee possessing greater social awareness. In the case of our university, these programs are supported by donors/foundations managed by UVG. Some programs, like SIFE and AIESEC, are by nature self-sustaining and must generate their own fund- ing. AIESEC (‘Association internationale des étudiants en sciences économiques et commerciales’ or the ‘International Economic and Com- mercial Sciences Students Association’) is the world’s largest youth-run organization, present in over 110 countries and territories and with over 60,000 members. AIESEC has 60 years of experience in developing high- potential youth into globally minded responsible leaders. The organiza- tion focuses on providing a platform for youth leadership development, offering young people the opportunity to participate in international in- ternships, experience leadership, and participate in a global learning en- vironment. AIESEC is run by young people for young people, enabling a strong experience to all its stakeholders. None of these projects are embedded into the curriculum. The SIFE students must organize themselves and assemble a “mentor com- mittee” composed of SIFE alumni and industry people who will guide them in the execution of the particular project. All mentoring is volun- teer, but as they are mostly SIFE alumni this increases the enthusiasm of the students. These programs have largely been extracurricular activities and the students are encouraged to participate. However, since 2010, due to mod- ifications in the accreditation processes, these activities have become part of the extension activities of our university and now they have become a graduation requirement for the School of Engineering requiring 10 hours of extension work per academic year. Most students clock many more hours than this. Our university does not have any formal certificates or 191 minors officially available for service learning credit, but the students can take elective courses related to the projects. USAC students must partic- ipate in such programs and it is included in the curricula. Our relationship with communities can be very close at times, or can be more distant at others. Our projects are focused mainly nearby to our campuses. If the relationship starts in a relaxed fashion, it leaves open the possibility of quickly growing more focused and closer as the com- munity sees positive results from the projects. Our campus of UVG-Al- tiplano is a perfect example. It is located on a former military base. People would not go into that area under any circumstances because of bad memories. Through the years, it has become a place of gathering and exchanging of experiences and is open to all. We can attribute this in part of our efforts in engaging the community. UVG-Altiplano works mainly with very poor local people (mayan descendants) and our champion is our Community Liaison Officer. He is local and knows the people and how to speak to them in their own language. The UVG Central and UVG-Sur campuses work with more Hispanic people and the champions are the dedicated project leaders. We strive to do more than simply engage in a project and then de- part. UVG strives to make all aspects of our partnerships and our pro- gram sustainable. For instance, socially we strive to convince the people that following the project instructions/actions will be better for them. We use clear examples and make it directly applicable to their lives; for example, asking them to feed chickens with a different type of corn. The resulting stronger and larger chickens convince them that the corn was good food and it would be beneficial for humans. The development of trust is critical. Economically, all of our enterprises must be economically self-sus- taining. In fact, this is a requirement of our donors and also of the uni- versity. Our champions in these efforts are our SIFE partners. Part of the effort involves training the people on better practices, better products and how to obtain an additional value that would mean a price premium. Working together with different disciplines is a valuable experience for our students. Environmentally, we strive to be very much oriented to protecting natural resources. Environmental impacts are evaluated in every project. 192 Just a few examples include: a. Re-inventing a suburb: A very low class suburb with very bad reputation is shown how to recycle all sorts of materials (paper, plastic, aluminum, etc.) and profit from it. This proj- ect has been replicated in several other suburbs with equally good success. b. Eco-weaving: Using leftover packaging material, the students teach community women how to weave it and prepare purses, wallets, bags, etc. and they also show the community where to sell them and obtain a profit from their activities. c. Macro Tunnels: Many country people work with the sugar mills cropping sugar cane. This work is available for a 6 month period of time each year. The rest of the year the peo- ple have little income. Macro Tunnels is a protected agricul- ture technique that allows the families of these workers to have another income source by producing vegetables all year long. This has been a very successful project. Our extension work is performed shoulder to shoulder with the marginalized communities as collaboration is essential for our success. The solutions proposed are customized to each community as they all have different particular needs and even the way of implementing them is different from one region to another. This is where the Liaison Officer of UVG-Altiplano comes in very handy to engage in frequent, direct com- munications with the communities themselves. One area of concern is that of liability. We deal with some poorly educated people. They can be “handled” by ill-intended persons with per- sonal interests. This is why the community has to be empowered within the framework of the project even before starting it. It must come from them instead of being imposed by our university. Lastly, we are constantly striving to incorporate entrepreneurship in all of our projects. University of Pretoria In 2005, the Faculty of Engineering, the Built Environment and Infor- mation Technology (EBIT) at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, 193 implemented a new compulsory undergraduate module entitled Commu- nity-based Project. This initiative was a new endeavor for the faculty and was the first of its kind for EBIT students in South Africa. Community- based learning was not included in the existing modules at the time, and therefore the establishment of a new, separate module was necessary. The main aim of the module is to develop students’ awareness of personal, so- cial, and cultural values, as well as multidisciplinary and life skills, such as communication, interpersonal and leadership skills. Community-based learning is a relative new field of learning. It is a form of experiential learning which aims to accomplish specific tasks which meets genuine human needs, as well as the execution of the tasks that serve as an educational and learning tool aimed at the acquisition of a number of important life skills by the students. Students have the option of attempting the module in any one of their undergraduate years of study but preferably not during their final year. Depending on the nature of a specific project, it can be attempted in the course of a semester, during vacation time, or both, as long as they provide a service to the community. The module is compulsory and counts for 8 credits. That means that the students must work 80 hours on the module. The module is structured such that the students work 40 hours in the community and do assignments for the other 40 hours. Projects may be executed by individual students or in teams. The condition for team projects is that a distinct task must be allocated to each team member. Multidisciplinary project teams that consist of team members from across the various schools and departments in the faculty are encouraged. There are certain set criteria that the project needs to comply to in the study manual. Students have to choose projects in an area for which they feel pas- sionate. This approach supports communities of practice on which the module is based. Students must also determine the community’s needs before they choose a project. Learning opportunities are created in both work practices and in a social context. Through the projects, students have to solve problems in real-life learning situations. Students may form their own teams. These teams may include students from the various de- partments and schools (e.g. school for Engineering, the Built Environ- 194 ment and Information Technology) as long as the student(s) are enrolled for the module for that specific year. The main reason is that many of the students enrolled for this module are in their second year of study and are not yet qualified to conduct projects related to their specific field of study, such as electronic or mining engineering. To engage in a project, the students first make an appointment with the lecturer and each project is discussed individually with the group. Stu- dents may form their own teams and may identify a project they are pas- sionate about. There are various community projects where students are on the sites on a yearly basis. These community partners identify projects at the beginning of the academic year and submit it to the lecturer. New com- munity partners also forward requests to the lecturer and these projects are assessed if it falls into the criteria of the outcomes of the module. Students also may identify their own project. Students from rural area always prefer to go back to their own communities for their outreach project. The students attend compulsory orientation sessions and then sub- mit their projects in the form of a proposal for evaluation and approval. The students set up a project proposal meeting with the lecturer. During this hour session the project is discussed, the community is contacted to confirm that the students may work on/in their site, and a meeting be- tween the students and the community is set. The student’s project is loaded on the e-learning management system, the finances for the project are discussed, and how they will go about to utilize it. In the case where they will use University transport, the transport costs and bookings will be done. The student’s blog report will be created. If the project falls in the criteria set by the module, the students may continue with the project. They may not start with the project before they discussed it with the lecturer. Each student receives an amount of R300 – R500 ( ± $37- $61) for their expenses, including transport. Stu- dents may only use the money for transport and materials and not lodging or food. Most of the money allocated to the module comes from the Uni- versity budget, but there are also various sponsors involved, e.g. Telkom, Denel, the City of Delft (The Netherlands). Students may request the money in advance as flat rate. If they use University transport, the cost of renting will be deducted from their al- 195 196 located funds. Many students also find donors and sponsors for their proj- ect. (e.g. a group found a sponsor for R22 000.00 ($2699.00) in 2011). Students then begin their fieldwork in the community of at least 40 hours. After the students have done their fieldwork they report on their experiences and lessons learned via a presentation and report in the form of a blog. Most of the participating students are only in their second year and as such undertake very elementary “engineering” projects. Very few big constructional projects are done. For example, students may repair jungle gyms or build a hoist feeder for the giraffe in the zoo. Prime partners in these efforts include the National Zoological gardens of Pretoria and the Johannesburg Zoo as well as the Air Force Museum and Military History Museum. Also, South Africa has a huge problem with a lack of qualified mathematics and science teachers. Therefore, one of the most popular projects has students, especially from rural areas, going back to their own schools and assisting learners with math and science. A person in the community has to assess the students at the end of the project and sign off on the project that they are satisfied that the work is satisfactory. In the case where the community is not satisfied with the work, the student may not pass the module. The lecturer discourages stu- dents to undertake design and construction of complex structures as it may lead to liability issues. *Code of the module **Students initially had the option of choosing between two modules. From 2009, this choice has not been available, hence the lower enrolment figures. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 JCP 201* (School for the Built Environment) 103 156 250 226 248 262 264 261 JCP 202* (School of Information Technology) 14 165 218 258 231 316 367 321 JCP 203* (School of Engineering) 121 417 742 1213 816** 919 960 1001 TOTAL JCP-students 238 738 1213 1697** 1295 1495 1591 1583 TABLE 8.1 NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THE MODULE 197 The Community-Based Project Module office has only one perma- nent staff member. Former Community-Based Project Module students are employed as office assistants and drivers to handle the huge number of students and the various administrative tasks, including basic admin- istration, booking transport, and organizing drivers. They interview ap- plicants for posts and train them, thereby taking ownership of the process. Students are preferably appointed as assistants in their third year so that they are available for two more consecutive years. The lector appointed to manage the module is responsible for the following: • Orientating students of the expectations of the module and their field work • Identifying possible projects for the students • Identifying and establishing community-campus partnerships • Assessing the students on the outcomes and reflections of their field work Managing the logistics of the module includes the transport of the students to their community sites as well as handling the funding re- ceived to execute the projects. There is one full-time lecturer responsible only for this one module. The lecturer visits communities before the academic year to establish needs in various communities and the com- munities also forward requests for assistance to the lecturer. Lecturers, in collaboration with communities, may choose the projects. Students may also identify projects themselves. Often times the communities re- quest assistance. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Number of projects 47 244 345 475 445 432 545 Number of community partners 31 186 267 381 288 265 402 TABLE 8.2 NUMBER OF PROJECTS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS FROM 2005 TO 2011. As can be expected, the number of projects increased as the number of students increased. The average size of the groups is two to four students. Sustainability is attained through students handing projects over to following year’s students, through the mentors assisting new students, and via agreements with communities to continue projects at site. Funding for travel to the sites is only provided if there is again a project taken place by the JCP-students on the specific site. It differs from project to project. Students sustain the websites they build for the communities; or the out- door playthings of a pre-school are fixed again the next year. Unfortu- nately, the students only work 40 hours during the whole of the academic year and social entrepreneurial projects needs continues support. The projects therefore are intensive short outreach efforts that address a specific need of a community. Both research and design projects are undertaken, as well as entre- preneurial efforts. However, these are very difficult to implement in the community-engagement module as students only work 40 hours a week and the best option for a successful entrepreneurial project is a champion on site. The following assessments are required from the students to com- plete the module successfully. Most of the assignment are done on the e-learning management system (Blackboard) that is used on the campus: - An assignment on the first contact session - An assignment on the second contact session - Opinion Polls 1,2 and 3 - A reflection assignment using De Bono’s thinking caps - An assignment on HIV/AIDs in the workplace - An assignment on gender awareness - The assessment of the community - A log statement indicating the hours worked - A presentation to the lecturer - A report in the form of a blog that is assessable from the Universities website http://blogs.up.ac.za/jcp2011/index.php There are definite changes in attitude in the students with regard to their outreach projects from the first opinion poll before they start with 198 199 their project to the final opinion poll (completed after their projects con- clude. The students are also required to reflect on their experiences in the blog report, a presentation, and the reflection assignment. A high per- centage of the students show a positive attitude change from the start of the project to the end of the project. This may also be attributed to the fact that they may identify a project according to the set criteria and work with a team they feel comfortable with. The module’s outcomes concen- trate on the development of soft skills, creating a better understanding of the socio-economic issues in a post-apartheid South Africa and creating of citizenship by the students. The assessments done by the communities give feedback on the performance of the students via an assessment form. They are also required to indicate that the students worked the set hours required for the module. Students that receive sponsorship from various industries must con- firm on a yearly basis that they did work at least 40 hours in the commu- nities. A “bursary” is a sponsor to assist with their study fees. Some students are employed, e.g. Air Force. They work during the recess (hol- idays) for the companies. Most companies prefer to sponsor the student, but do not employ the student at that time. However, the student will work for the company after they completed their studies. They have to complete the module as part of the undergraduate course to receive the degree but it is not necessary for the employment contract. Various industries, for example Exxaro, get involved in the mod- ules and industry does contribute to the support of the program and fund projects. The project efforts are very often multidisciplinary. Even though a module may be a separate module in the curriculum of the Faculty, it is still strongly linked with the outcomes of the other modules. The champions at the university who provides oversight are the lec- turer for the module and the Dean of the Faculty. The community cham- pions include: leaders in communities, NGOs, NPO’s, schools, and government departments. The University is legally responsible for the projects and is handled differently from project to project and community to community. Some of the insights and lessons learned by student are captured in remarks such as the following: “The JCP experience was very interesting, it took us out of our comfort zones and made us realize that poverty is a reality. We actually saw that there are people who have far less and are far happier with it (or at least appreciate it more) than we are with all our privileges. It was a lot of fun to build the vegetable garden, especially since we knew someone else was going to benefit from it. Hopefully we made life a little easier for the children and the people who take care of them.” “Having done this really opened my eyes to what we have and what we should be grateful for. What we might have as a luxury, these kids need as a necessity. These kids crept into our hearts. The work was hard and it took some time, but with perseverance, we finished the job with exceedingly great results. We made the veg- etable garden with the thought that in the future, it will benefit them. It will feed them and help them grow, not only physically, but as a unit. This experience has been life changing and helped me grow as a person.” Summary As evidenced by the comments made above from four different uni- versities’ perspectives, many of the same issues related to the LTS efforts at universities in the United States are experienced by universities around the world. What stands out first and foremost is that all of the universities consider the engagement by students in real world projects which impact the community as valuable. Each of the programs felt immersion and in- teraction with the communities was critical. Sustainability was key in all responses. A focus on the social, environmental, and economic sus- tainability aspects of the projects was important. In particular, each mentioned how corporate and businesses see value in the efforts and are incorporating such activities into their corporate missions to engage so- cieties in positive ways. There were obviously different methods of im- 200 plementing such programs. Whether the academy embeds the projects in the curriculum, does not embed in the curriculum yet requires such engagement as a graduation requirement, mandates an entire program dedicated to all students engaging in LTS, or, relies on volunteers, what was consistently expressed was the need to have the students engage in a fashion to utilize their academic skills and create positive benefits for the communities. Liability was mentioned as a concern by all, but nothing that has arisen has caused major problems with projects. Likewise, entrepreneur- ship was mentioned by each institution’s representative as useful, but there were not formally structured programs to integrate this effort for all par- ticipants. In comparing the efforts from these universities to those located in the United States, some common areas stand out. First, the level of in- terdisciplinary engagement is valued but not necessarily inherent in formal programs. Second, the level of academic rigor is often not maximized, instead focusing on the ‘softer skill’ benefits for the students. Third, little or no research efforts into the problems of marginalized communities was evidenced. And lastly, entrepreneurial interventions to take technologi- cally appropriate products and processes to market and ensure their eco- nomic sustainability were not central to many of the discussions. However, the similarities and predispositions from all concerned in- dicate that a critical point has been reached. There is a strong recognition that students and faculty located at institutions of higher learning around the world perceive that they have the ability, the responsibility, the means, and the inclination to step forward and begin to make a difference. As these many differing approaches to integrating academia, industry, com- munity, social, and economic concerns evolve, the path is clear - a con- vergence of interests from many stakeholders to ‘do good while doing well’ is expressing itself around the world. 201 202 203 “Everytimeourabilitytoaccessinformationand tocommunicateittoothersisimproved,insome sensewehaveachievedanincreaseovernatural intelligence.” — Vernor Vinge 204 Background The debate about open access of academic research is old news for some 1,2 but it is worth revisiting here in this forum. The International Journal for Service-Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) is committed to recognizing and dissem- inating scholarship in the areas of humanitarian engineering, social en- trepreneurship, frugal engineering, and service learning in engineering and the associated collaboration with marginalized communities. The journal serves as a platform for communities, students, academics, and practitioners to share their experiences in humanitarian engineering, social entrepreneurship, frugal innovation and service-learning in engineering; and to learn from one another. Through this, the editors of the journal hope to encourage more students to demand more meaningful and ben- eficial projects in their curriculum, for faculty to connect students with complex “real-world” issues, and for communities to see the action po- tential of engineering students. This means not only providing open access of knowledge to fellow academics, but also to students, communities, and professionals outside academia. Without this open access, the journal would not be financially or physically accessible to many of the audiences outside of traditional academia. The journal recognizes the Open Society Institute’s definition of open source: “By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these ar- ticles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining Usman Mushtaq Queen’s University CHAPTER 9 OpenAccessScholarlyKnowledge: aCommonWealth access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited” 3 . As such, the International Journal for Service-Learning in Engineering remains open to both authors and readers. No author fees are charged for publication nor are subscription fees charged. The journal allows (and en- courages) the distribution, sharing, and copying of the articles in the Jour- nal through use of the CC-BY-SA copyleft license 4 . Keeping in mind the commitment to be fully accessible to all stakeholders, yet maintain the financial sustainability of the journal, the editors of IJSLE have fully adopted the open access model by employing the Open Journal System (OJS), an open-source journal management system developed by the pub- licly funded Public Knowledge Project 5 . However, the IJSLE is not by any means a forerunner in adopting the open-access model. History of Open Access Academic journals like the Electronic Journal of Communication, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Communication Institute for On- line Scholarship, have been freely accessible online since the early 1990s 6,7 . Over the course of the 1990s, many other peer-reviewed open access jour- nals were created, many from editorial staff leaving already established journals 7 . Still, these journals could not shake off perceptions of low-qual- ity and low-impact among traditional academics, leading many of them to flounder and eventually disappear 8 . To challenge these perceptions, the Open Society Institute in Budapest called a meeting in 2001 on open ac- cess. In this meeting, participants from academia, government, and civil society created the Open Access Initiative, which called for open access to peer-reviewed journal literature through both open-access journals and self-archiving 3 . While some of the more negative perceptions remain, open access journals over the course of the last few years have come to be seen by many authors to be just as impactful and quality-driven as their toll access brethren 9 . Coupled together with rising fees for libraries to access journals and increasing monopolies in academic publishing 10 , more au- 205 thors and academic institutions are beginning to see open access as a viable option than ever before even though some barriers remain 11 . In January 2010, an expert panel on academic publishing submitted a report to the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology re- questing that all research-funding agencies develop explicit public-access policies 12 . Today, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), a col- lection of scholarly peer-reviewed open journals, lists 4,801 journals in fields from agriculture to archaeology to philosophy 1 . Debating Open Access Yet, the debate about open access of scholarly knowledge is still on- going. Critics of open access argue that open access merely shifts the fi- nancial responsibility from the reader-subscriber to the author 13 . For example, Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals, an open access aca- demic publishing non-profit, charges authors fees to publish; however, the publication is freely accessible to all readers 14 . This author-pays model is especially problematic for authors from low-income communities who have neither the personal income nor the institutional funding to afford authorship. In this case, publications would be biased towards authors from the Global North 13 . On the other hand, supporters of open access claim that authors in the Global South often struggle more with a lack of knowledge of open access and its benefits rather than authorship charges, as many open access journals will waive author charges for deserving au- thors 15 . This is a failing not of open access but of outreach from the open access community. In fact, open access archiving has been argued to be a “fast-track” to building research capacity in India 16 . Other studies have shown that authorship charges were actually a common practice since the early 1980s, even in the traditional academic publishing world 15 , demon- strating that this model has worked quite well for traditional publishers. In addition, critics of open access claim the author-pays model would create incentives for open access journals to be less selective of ac- cepted articles in their publication as more articles would mean more profit 17 . BioMed Central, an open access publisher, debunks that by ar- guing that toll access journals have just as much motivation to include more articles to justify their high prices. In any case, a journal that does 206 not publish excellent peer-reviewed content will see its reputation harmed 18 . The peer-reviewed system is self-correcting in that sense. Meanwhile, established publishing houses argue that the rising costs of toll access journals actually lead to profit that can be invested into the creation of research/publication tools or better editing that creates added value 17 . In a more “bare-bones” open access model, that same investment into publication and editing could not be made leading to a loss of value. The biggest argument against open access, of course, is that the model is financially unsustainable even if authors pay 19 . The model is even more financially unsustainable if content is free to be published and accessed. These subsidized journals must rely on volunteer staff, institutional com- mitment, or funding agencies making it unsustainable to create a consistent product 20 . Open access supporters counter this argument by pointing out the variety of business models that have sprung up to tackle the issue of fi- nancial sustainability 21 . There is no one fixed open access business model. Many journals “mix and match” models to maximize access to the public. Bigger open access publishing houses like PLoS and BioMed Central are even able to make considerable investments into editorial and publishing tools that make their journals highly ranked in their respective fields. Finally, there is the debate around impact, on which considerable literature has been devoted. Without going into too much detail, open access has been shown in multiple studies to increase impact by increasing access to literature either through open access publication or open archives 22,23,24 . However, this impact increase differs from field to field and from journal to journal. Peter Suber, an open source advocate, ex- plains the high rate of high impact toll access journals by pointing out that many open access journals are new while many toll access journals have been established for quite some time 25 . If given some time to develop a reputation, open access journals should have just as much of an impact as already established toll access journals. The debate around open access is by no means over. However, in the opinion of the IJSLE editors, the debate has shifted from whether open access is a viable option to that of “how can we use the full potential of open access”, while keeping in mind the limitations of online access, financial sustainability, and public understanding of academic jargon. 207 With that in mind, the journal seeks to facilitate student learning, faculty scholarship, and community engagement via open access. By keeping the educational aspects in mind, we believe the open access community can start thinking about using the action potential of open access and proceed towards more community-oriented access. Learning and Open Access Those unfamiliar with the debate around open access often confuse the term open access with free access. However, free access is not open access 26 . An article that can be accessed without cost by the reader-sub- scriber is just the first part of open access. The second part of open access must be that the reader-subscriber has the full ability to share, reproduce (with attribution), and otherwise distribute the article free of cost over any medium to any audience. A journal that provides access to publica- tions for free but does not allow authors to retain copyright or for reader- subscribers to distribute the publication cannot be considered open access 27 . However, this definition of open access is incomplete if the goal of open access journals is to provide access to scholarly knowledge to the proverbial “man on the street”. After all, the desire for this “man on the street” to read the Journal of Molecular Podiatry has not “been subverted for the past century by the mercenary interests and narrow–mindedness of publishers” 28 . While Esposito says that ironically, there is some truth to the fact that many journals produce esoteric knowledge that is intel- lectually inaccessible to a wider audience of practitioners and students even in the field. As a journal that shows viewers how to connect with the needs of their communities and technology developers how to create in an appropriate context, the editors of IJSLE believe that our journal should be physically, financially, and, most importantly, intellectually ac- cessible to a wider audience of students, community members, technology developers, educators, and community development practitioners. As such, our journal attempts to be relevant and accessible to this wide au- dience and that full open access is a prerequisite in addressing the “last mile problem” 29 . The “last mile problem” of knowledge is the two-step problem of gaining access to scholarly knowledge once it’s published and then using 208 it to answer questions 29 . Open access addresses the first issue of gaining access to scholarly knowledge. Under the open access model, all reader- subscribers have access to scholarly knowledge. However, just because a reader-subscriber can access and share scholarly knowledge does not mean they can apply it or understand it. Not only does scholarly knowledge need to be physically and financially accessible, but that knowledge needs to be shared and distributed in a way so that a wide audience can access it at a level of historical knowledge, language, academic jargon/culture, and theoretical background to use the knowledge in answering their ques- tions. Otherwise, academic knowledge is merely,to draw an analogy from internet connectivity, the high speed cable line to the local dial-up net- work. That is the “last mile problem”. While open access does not directly address the second part of the problem, it is a prerequisite to solving the issue entirely. The IJSLE’s editors believe, in our case, the definition of open access must be refined to include intellectual accessibility in both the issues discussed in our Journal (relevant not just to service-learning engineering educators) and the language/academic, culture/history/theory of our journal. Otherwise, our Journal will not be truly accessible to much of our audience. As proof of the accessibility of our journal, a considerable part of our audience is students. In fact, the IJSLE includes quite a few publica- tions from students by themselves or with faculty support. We believe open-access can be a powerful tool in connecting students with each other and with the latest knowledge in their field. An example of that can be found on the PLoS website, where many students provide comments/ feedback on posted articles and essays 30 . It comes as no surprise then that students are among the most vocal advocates of open access recognizing that open access improves the education experience by providing them access to publications 31 . Through open access, students can access the lat- est scholarly knowledge regardless of geographic location, socio-economic status, or institutional support. As a journal dedicated to education, we want to make sure that the knowledge in our Journal is accessible to all students. Open access is one proven way forward. In fact, open access is a necessary tool in the democratization of knowledge for all 32 . IJSLE is committed to bringing in voices that have 209 been traditionally absent in engineering education. This can only be done though if the journal creates inclusive methods of contributing and shar- ing knowledge. Open access allows for that inclusivity. With that in mind, IJSLE remains committed to open access in the fullest sense and our move to the Open Journal System is part of that commitment. The Open Journal System The Budapest Open Access initiative describes two different ap- proaches to open access 3 . The first path is the “gold” path of journals im- mediately releasing published material at no cost to the user-subscriber. The second path is the “green” path of authors choosing to archive their published material in the publicly accessible repositories of their institu- tions or journals after a time delay. IJSLE provides open access to both current published articles as well as archived material. Due to this commitment to open access, the editors of IJSLE found that maintaining our own journal management and publication website was too burdensome. Therefore, we switched to the Open Journal System (OJS) in the summer of 2009. OJS is an open-source journal manage- ment and publication system specifically designed for newer peer-re- viewed open access journals 2 . It is a creation of the Public Knowledge Project, a publicly funded initiative to improve the quality of research 33 . Taking the lead from other successful open access journals 34 , we chose to move to the OJS platform for several reasons. OJS was specifically designed to facilitate the work processes of an open access journal. Therefore, OJS is an ideal platform for the Interna- tional Journal for Service-Learning in Engineering management and pub- lication, not only for the editors but also for authors, reviewers, and readers. The platform simplifies and consolidates the work flow of a jour- nal into easy steps, which can then be followed by the reviewers, authors, and editors. In addition, OJS has a simple easy to-use interface for user- subscribers to our journal. They can quickly and efficiently access any of our published material and, more importantly, share it with others. At the same time, OJS allows our journal to keep costs down as the platform is available for free. IJSLE only “pays” for the OJS platform through the IT support and hardware provided by Queen’s University in 210 Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The platform is also open source. This means it can be modified to meet the needs of every individual journal. In our case, we have slightly modified the OJS platform to meet the unique needs of IJSLE. That the OJS platform is a publicly accessible open source plat- form is a benefit that meshes nicely with our commitment to inclusivity and open access. The editors of IJSLE have found the OJS platform to be a useful tool in improving the services provided by our journal, whether those are editing or publishing services. Most importantly, the move to the OJS platform has decreased the burden of managing and operating an open access journal. In turn, we can dedicate more of our time and energy into making IJSLE a high impact journal, while keeping it as open as possible. 211 REFERENCES 1 Directory of open access journals. (2010). . Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.doaj.org/. 2 Open-Access License. (n.d.). PLoS Biology. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.plosbiology.org/static/license.action. 3 Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002, February 14). Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml. 4 Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. (2010). Creative Commons. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. 5 Open Journal Systems. (January 2010). Public Knowledge Project. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs. 6 Harrison, T. M., Stephen, T., & Winter, J. (1991). Online Journals: Disciplinary Designs for Electronic Scholarship. The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2(1), 25-38. 7 Suber, P. (2009, February 9). Open-Access Timeline. The SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ timeline.htm. 8 Wells, A. (1999). Exploring the development of the independent, electronic, scholarly journal. Master’s, University of Sheffield. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://panizzi.shef.ac.uk/elecdiss/edl0001/index.html. 9 Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17, 219-224. 10 Edlin, A. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing? The “big deal” bundling of academic journals. Antitrust Law Journal, 72(1), 119-157. 11 Bjork, B. (2004). Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change? Information Research, 9(2). Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://informationr.net/ir/9-2/paper170. 12 News Briefing. (2010). Nature, 463, 274-275. 13 Gadagkar, R. (2008). Open-access more harm than good in developing world. Nature, 453(7194), 450. doi: 10.1038/453450c. 14 Publication Fees for PLoS Journals. (n.d.). Public Library of Science. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php. 15 Papin-Ramcharan, J. I., & Dawe, R. A. (2006). Open access publishing: a developing country view. First Monday, 11(6). 16 Sahu, D. (2006). Open access: unrestricted access to published research. 93rd Indian Science Congress, Hyderabad, India. 17 Worlock, K. (2004, September 13). The pros and cons of Open Access. Nature Web Focus. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/ accessdebate/34.html. 18 BioMed Central. (2004). (Mis)leading Open Access Myths. Submission to House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publications, BioMed Central. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/ inquiry/myths.pdf. 212 19 Editorial Staff. (2004). Experiments in publishing. Nature, 431(111). Retrieved March 10, 2010, from 22 Antelman, K. (2004). Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? College & Research Libraries, 372-382. 20 Solomon, D. J. (2006). Strategies for developing sustainable open access scholarly journals. First Monday, 11(6). Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1335/1255. 21 Willinsky, J. (2003). The Nine Flavours of Open Access Scholarly Publishing . J Postgrad Med, 49(3), 263-267. 22 Antelman, K. (2004). Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? College & Research Libraries, 372-382. 23 Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS Biol, 4(5), e157. 24 Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2004). The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Ac- cess: An Update. Serials Review, 34, 36-40. 25 Suber, P. (2008a). SPARC Open Access Newsletter. SPARC. Retrieved from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-08.htm. 26 Weitzman, J. (2003, July 28). Free access is not open access. Open Access now, 1. 27 Bethesda Principles. (2003, April 11). Open Access Now. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/ bethesda/. 28 Esposito, J. (2004). The devil you don’t know: The unexpected future of Open Access publishing. First Monday, 9(8). Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://first- monday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/ fm/article/view/1163/1083. 29 Suber, P. (2008b). SPARC Open Access Newsletter. SPARC. Retrieved from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/07-02-08.htm#lastmile. 30 Chinnock, P. (2007, October 14). Using open-access articles for student projects. Public Library of Science. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.plos.org/cms/node/271. 31 Student Statement on The Right to Research. (2008). The Right to Research Coalition. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.righttoresearch.org/students/ statement.shtml. 32 Pyati, A. (2007). A critical theory of open access: Libraries and electronic publish- ing. First Monday, 12(10). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/ htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1970/1845. 33 About PKP. (n.d.). Public Knowledge Project. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://pkp.sfu.ca/about. 34 Case, M. M., & John, N. R. (2007). Opening up scholarly information at the Uni- versity of Illinois at Chicago. First Monday, 12(10). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1956/1833. http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/35.html. 213 214 CHAPTER 10 Stakeholders 215 IEEE Humanitarian Technology brings together talented, caring individuals who leverage the power of innovation to improve the lives of the world’s poorest people. Humanitarian Technology We’re INVENTING solutions. www.ieeehtc.org > Reliable electricity. > Data communications for regional health ofﬁces. > Patient identiﬁcation tied to health records. We’re INSPIRING others. www.ieeehtn.org We’re INVESTING for the future. ieeefoundation.org It’s possible for you to make a difference: Join us. Whether you have some time each week to spare or an idea or donation you’d like to share, you are sure to ﬁnd an IEEE Humanitarian Technology initiative that ﬁts your talents, time frame or philanthropic goals, while strengthening your professional, organizational and community relationships in the process. INVENT. INSPIRE. INVEST. ani um H n h c e TTe an i r a t ani y g o ol n NVE I n a m u E H E E I N . I ENTT. I y b og l o n h c e n TTe a i r a t i n E. I R I SP N t n e l a r t e h t e og s t g n i r y b T NVES E. I s w l a u d i v i d n g i n i r a , c ed t . TT. o h s w r e a r e . H d l r o r w u o t a r o p r o s c l a l e s w a n a v d n a s o u c o e f W e t f o t n e m e c n a v d a 7 n 3 a h e t r o h m t i W e po h e t g a rra e v ee l n a m u E H E E I . m e h f t w o e t a f u e b g r t o ﬁ o r p n o , n s n a i c i m e d a c , a s n o i t y w t i n a m r hu o y f g o l o n h c e ng t i c n . y g o l o n h c e r t n u o 0 c 6 n 1 s i r e b m e 0 m 0 0 , 5 7 n t o i t a vva o n n f i r o e w e po y b og l o n h c e n TTe a i r a t i n ng i i r a d c n s a t n e d u t , s s n o i t a z i n a g y o a r r ng a i d n a p x y e l l a u n i t n o h a c t i ng p i d a e s l ’ d l r o e w h s t E i E E , I s e i r s o e v i e l h e t v oo r p m o i n t t n e l a r t e h t e og s t g n i r y b y t g o l o n h c e e t s o u s — t l a u d i v i d n ng i e E m E E e I l b na t e a h s t m a r g o r f p y o e h r t o n f o i t a i c o s s l a na o i s s e f o r ng p s e r s poo ’’s poo d l r o e w h f t s o s w l a u d i v i d n g i n i r a , c ed t r e t t e o b y t s – r e b m e . e l p o e t p s o h s w c ﬁ i tti n e d t i n e i t a P > i n mu m o a c t a D > ci i rri ttr c e el e l b a i Relli > d l r o e w h f t e o m o s n T a i r a t i n a m u e H h T T N E V N e I r ’ e W . s dds r o c e h r t l a e o h d t e i n tt o i t a c e c ﬁ ffﬁ h o tt l a e l h a n o i g e r r o s ffo n o i ti a c i . yy. ty ci t i n , i s e ng e l l a h ng c i s s e r t p s o s m ’ d o i s t k e e e s ng e l l a h y C g o l o n h c e TT . ns o i t u l o G s N I T . s e : n ng o i s u c o y f l l a i t , e v l o o s k t r o d w n , a y f i t n e d o i g r o . c ht eee i . ww w w c n i s a d b n e a s r a p s e n , e t n e m p o l e v e d p l e h t a h t s t c e j o r p n T a i r a t i n a m u e H h T T S E V N e I r ’ e W R I P S N e I ’ W . t e t m o e n r s a d e e c n s o h n t n i o i t a c i n u m m o d c n y a g r e l a e h o t d e t a l e r s e u s s i e v l o s e r o t a r d g r a w l a l i d w n u y F g o l o n h c e TT . e r u t u e f h r t o G f N I T h t G o N I R s y i g o l o n h c e e t r e h s w n o i g e e r c i m o n o c e , f e i l e r r e t s a s i d , h t l e v i t a v o n n y i l l a c i g o l o n h c e o t s t t n a g r o . n o i t a d n u fo e e e i ht i i i u a o , yyo ee, y rre a h o s e to k ii lli e d n iid r a e o r a p o s sp to v a u h o r y yo e h tth e h WWh . s u oin J e a d k a o m t b i s s o s p ’s t I e i i i y i l h n d a n o ﬁ e tto ﬁ rre t u e s re u a d ’’d u o n y o i tt a n o r do a o e k e e h wwe c a e e m iim e tti m e so vve so : e c n e r e ffe f i e a d u o r y o e f l b h n t s o r e k r o d w l e ﬁ t s y su l l a c i m o n o c e n o d n n s a r e b m e m a l i m i ng s i o e d s o h t E E E I e h t h g u o r h T R I P S N e I r ’ e W ” . s e n i t l n o r f e “ h n o i t a v o n n l i a c i g o l o n h c e e t l b na i a e e s m p l e N h T , H e k i l s a r e b m e m n o y f t i l i b i s i ng v i n i a e g l i h , w k r o r w a w t e N y g o l o n h c e TT n a i r a t i n a m u H . s r e h t G o N I R y d b e s e u n b a t c a h s t a e d d i n s a n ng i r a h y s s b d e e n n a i r a t i n a m t hu e E E E o I e t l b i s s e c c . A s t r o f f r e i e h r t o w e n i l n o t c e n n o c s r e b m e m , k r o g r o . n ht eee i . ww w w r o t m u d o n o ﬁ TTo ﬁ i tti a lla e y r re tt i n mu m o c l a n o i s sss e ffe o rro r p u o yyo a o c g ii p o rro h tth n a lla i h p e le a r ta u o s yyo tts y t ﬁ a h t a i rri a ta i n a m u E H EEE H EEE I y ng E h t i w g r o . e e e i @ c t l h i a m , e e r . s ss e c o r e p h n t s iin t p iip h s n o i d n l a a n o i t a z iiz n a g rrg , o ll, o ng ii n e h tth ng e re tr e s lle s i h , w wh ss, w lls a r e o m a rra e ffr m iim , tti ss, t tts n e e v i ti a i t i n y i i ggy i o llo o n h cc e n T Te a 216 217 218 219 EWHhasseveralexciting,educationalprogramsforengineeringstudentswho wanttohaveanimpactonhealthcareindevelopingcountries: x EWH Summer Institutes: Spendtwomonthsimmersedinthelanguageandcultureofadevelopingcountry,participate intechnicaltrainingsessions,andrepairlifeͲsavingequipmentinalocal,resourceͲpoorhospital x EWH Chapters:JoinlikeͲmindedstudentstodesign,build,andrepairmedicaltechnologiestobeputintouseinadevelͲ opingcountry.Collaboratewithadevelopingworldtechniciantoimprovetheapplicationofmedicaltechnologyusing locallyavailableresources. x EWH Kits:Buildmedicalequipmenttestdevicesthatenableadevelopingcountrytomaintainandrepairtheirmedical equipment. Find more information at www.ewh.org and inquire at info@ewh.org Engineering World Health Change lives (including your own) 220 © 2009 Engineers Without Borders – International, All Rights Reserved Engineers Without Borders – International (EWB-I) Ingenjörer och Naturvetare utan Gränser Ingenieros Sin Fronteras Ingeniører uden Grænser Ingénieurs Sans Frontières Ingenieurs Zonder Grenzen Ingenieure Ohne Grenzen Engineers Without Borders Engineers Without Frontiers Engenheiros sem Fronteiras Ingegneria Senza Frontiere Inzeneri bez Granici ȂȘȤĮȞȚțȠȓ ȋȦȡȓȢ ȈȪȞȠȡĮ ʺʥʬʥʡʢ ʠʬʬ ʭʩʱʣʰʤʮ Engineers Without Borders - Ìnternational (EWB-Ì) is an international association of national EWB/ÌSF groups whose mission is to facilitate collaboration, exchange of information, and assistance among its member groups that have applied to become part of the association. EWB-Ì helps the member groups develop their capacity to assist poor communities in their respective countries and around the world. The main office of EWB-Ì resides in the USA with regional offices in Mexico, Ìndia, Belgium, and Egypt. The member groups of EWB-Ì share a similar mission, which is to partner with disadvantaged communities to improve their quality of life through education and implementation of sustainable engineering projects, while promoting new dimensions of experience for engineers, engineering students, and similarly motivated non-engineers. EWB-Ì creates links between like-minded organizations and cuts across national borders. Ìt works in collaboration with various partner organizations affiliated with its member organizations. Projects conducted by individual EWB/ÌSF member groups are grassroots and small and are not usually addressed by in-country consulting firms. Ìt is a matter of policy that prior to taking on projects, EWB-Ì member groups make sure that they are not competing with private engineering firms. EWB-Ì member groups and partner organizations contribute to meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals through capacity building in their projects. They have endorsed the Earth Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. EWB-Ì consists of member groups, provisional member groups, and start-up groups. All groups function autonomously. Membership requires that all members adhere to high professional and ethical standards as stated in the EWB-Ì By-Laws. EWB-Ì provides a unique platform for the different organizations to: x Contribute to meeting the MDGs through capacity building in local projects x Collaborate on projects and studies worldwide x Share ideas, experiences, technical knowledge, and documentation x Develop partnerships on community projects x Address more global issues and projects x Coordinate student exchanges, internships, and professional volunteers x Advertise meetings and events x Train and connect engineering professionals and students around the world x Create synergy between their members EWB-Ì is host of the Humanitarian Engineers’ Registry and EWB-I Database. This register of skills links those in needs with those who can provide services, technologies, and solutions to eradicate poverty in communities around the world. For more information, contact Prof. Bernard Amadei, EWB-Ì Executive Director, E-mail: bamadei@gmail.com, Tel:1-303-929-8167, Skype: bamadei Disclaimer: EWB-I is not in any way affiliated with Doctors Without Borders. Doctors Without Borders is a registered trademark of Bureau International de Médecins Sans Frontieres. Web site: www.ewb-international.org 221 l P 3 P rosperity and the eople, P rosperity and the Competition for Sustainability lanet-a National Student Design P eople - P 3 P Competition for Sustainability lanet-a National Student Design rosperity and the eople, P Competition for Sustainability lanet-a National Student Design rosperity and the a 3333 aa P wwaardd P ard s ’ A EP PA www aaaaw aw aw 333 planet ity prosper people PPPPPPP 3 ywher an inno students enr is a sustainabilit 3 PP h Wh at i e in the wor ywher e designs that addr vativ inno led at U.S. ol students enr y r is a sustainabilit ? 3 at is P an and The solicitatio ld. lenges to sustainabilit hal ess c e designs that addr leges an de design c col led at U.S. h de c esear y r pr w n 3 w PP tainab for ne fo n es to ng nge o sust The solicitatio en ies to d e d ersitie d d n fo univ d u mpe for fo for io etitio co co osal o als opo al ls y bility y y it it ilit t d v de elop v de de icultur Agr ojects c r P What types of designs are we looking for? is open in the fal ywher En n Built En , e icultur an be in the fol ojects c What types of designs are we looking for? l of e is open in the fal nd o and s nment, o vir vir n n n n eas wing ar lo lo l fol ol e fol we l e l esigns are we . ear y y er v l of e Mate Ch ials & Ch W l & Ch er Mater W ,, yyy, y, Energ E , ater r or? WWater s: oking for? s: loo g for? p emi als ic p the spr atio N $10,000 to de eam TTeams pr Where does the competition come in? a g the e e the e nab e nable ing wher in the spr ustai lop t e el p t nal S atio e a an v $10,000 to de a gr e a he c h h epar eams pr ere does th f r iti competi th e m mpete f for a P mp e for a P n Expo i co y c esign e e D e De i Expo in ha heir des ha P P esign thei sign. posal opo posal for a it co nt pr nt p omp tition co 3 P wa d and a $ D ? $ ar war A D AAwar 3 P P as D n, n hingto ash to W ms attend WWashingto W ase I tea ustainable Design Expo in ase I team e ant a e I gr hase I gr PP 33 P P o ome in? $75 000 C $75,000 in i C, C DDD d th the ant of Go to the P an WWant more information? to the mar hase II gr P e.. website 3 Go to the P ant more information? place fu o fur ket to the mar ant to hase II gr ing wher the spr tio on? lop t hei atio tio website mat her e el th v th r dde p ant to fur y ir d designs o v d s or mo hem m e them v w w w o g . a p e . 3 p / v o 222 d class d worl f rd b n o d n a s te sta US 7 2 in d n u Fo The : P C2 out Ab te d lea sine b to d e th r e d Un ts. n e tin n r co u fo cte u d n s co a rg) h .o F P 2 (C n tio a d ists, Gr E S CA log ch a f o n ctio e ir d rams rog p d cte m p lo Deve ve cla o t Au larr o S : t an Gr t en d n a t ri e M f o te Certifica rea in g rnin lea m o classro wers a o p m e n titio e p m co dem Aca mmunity Co The ity se n u m m co rams to rog p U S \ O S S D G Q D S R O H Y H G R W m co d n a ists rop th n a il h p d e class - d worl f o rd a o b lemen p im to ing d n fu t ran g - o icr m ives rece t n e d stu The . fe li l rea p a to ts n e d stu s te tiva o m d n wers a neur pre re nt E e ic rv e S ic dem ren trep n e cial so d n a ce rvi ity se D F D ¶ V W Q H G X W V N Q L O R W V P D U J R U tio a d n Fou e th ficials, ffficials, ity o n u m m te rs, e d lea ss sine u b rs, to ca u e Gr E S CA th t lemen P C2 a ir e th ly p p t ran g neur . rship u e ren F L P H G s e u tin n co n tio ists, log o n ch te m p lo Deve ve cla o t Au larr Au o S : t an Gr t en re whe , r lte e sh ce n viole H Y L Q 8 H K W W D V W Q H G X W 6 r p e th in s h g u o r kth a e r b p E CAS ² logy hno c e Te lect se e th rs iniste m d a d n a re whe rg, k.o o o B ce rvi e S d n a jects oo r P . r semeste roce p le who The ct. roje p a se o n iag d to rn lea s e e train H Q L O Q R Q D W O L X E V D [ H 77H I R \ W L V U H cess o isci d wn o ir e th g n ri b ts n a p rtici a inclu les p m xa E ss. roce p ion lect p a ives rece n tio a d n Fou e th re t a n e se e b can sals o p o r p d in d e let p m co rally e n e g is ss roce va s a a lems rob p th wi l a e d d n O 3 H I D 6 I R Q R L W D O X P L V O D X W UUW L Y H e ren trep n e cial so to s e n li p isci : e d inclu s n tio ca li p p le sing a in sa s, se ca l tica e th o yp h in rs ta va P R G W V H J U D O V ¶ Q R L W D Q H K W H F D o n ch te g tin crea n e ft o , rship u e ly fe sa F L W V H P y log o co e - g a ch e TTe inia g ir V A rvi te in ing d inclu les u d o m iversity Un e th t a t n e d u st A lopme e v De c mi ono c E d n a ls a ri te a m rns, e tt a p E S CA a d se u ts n e d stu ing d il u b is fit o r p - n o n A sh l a ctu a e th from rt a p a ran g e th d se jor u aa m ics m o n co tio cta e p r ex loye p m e , g n wi e rvi , a Omah , raska Neb f o iversity roje ity p n u m m co E CAS ² nt lopme im n a o int s e iqu n ch te ing d il u b vil e g a g n e to e kyp S d n a t ran g sed a b a d n in Uga l o scho a ing . r lte e sh rod p a lop ve e d to ya n e K in t ran roce p n tio ca li p p a job e th s, n tio ca lo a lp e h to t ran g e th d se u rep p d n a s job te crea lp e h cts roje . sign e d d rove p im ss roce p sign e d e th in rs e lag vil ints. r p lue " b r te cutt e ki "coo n o sed tio u b istri d , ing rket a m , n ctio u rod th o d n a ce rvi se r e m sto cu ss, roce a d n a t o il p , lop ve e d ty ri a ch l ca work fo d te ca u d e r e tt e b a re a rep e g d e wl o kn ir e th g n ri b d n a ss e m a D tre o N f o ty si r e iv n U ints. n tio ca u d e d n a n tio ls. skil r e th s s ine d rea job ss sse a rce. work fo r e th wea l loca f o e e r ctu chite r a loca L ein b er t Ot : t an Gr E S CA vince n co ram to rog p g g n it p e t was a f o n io at r o t es r e, ak L a e b y row so g rs to e rm fa l loca g jor u o n o d o ls a s r e iv careg re a ts n e d stu f o % 0 3 to rou a ities n u m m co In ities. rtun o p p o d stu r e g n u yo te ca u d e e Colleg ² tion duca E inco re cu se re o m , r e tt e b r a fo s n p lop ya sed u t n e d stu U GSS A . d a e r t ing d rea in rd a d n sta low e b re S rn e west th u o S rgia o Ge d n rou tu p ca lp e h ts ran g E CAS ts. n e d rtun o p p o d fin work to ts n e d stu lnu a m t a b m co to d n a e m inco , ing , to t n a r g CASE a sed ir e th se u ca e b p u ty rsi Unive te ta S se o th re tu d n a e ir sp in to ities rtun . trition vices. e d ical n a ch e m stu city - r e inn , r e g n u yo e ll co re e wh p m ca y a d to t ran g E S CA a d se u ine g n e ical n a ch me A reg ca e th g lpin e h s u th R K H N D W ³ Q H U G O L K F H Y L J a ts o rob ing d il u b while ts n e d stu d n a th a m t h g u ta ts n e d stu e g e s a rm sto ind M o g e L se rcha u p to Unive n o Dayt t a t n e d stu g n ri e ine ch a e ch a te d il ch e h t d n a iver reg H Y L J H U D F Q L D U W G Q D V N R R E ´ H P r e th o d n a to ce scien d r a fo sis a b e h s t s a io Oh in ty rsi Unive . d rea to r e th o ch V O O L N V J Q L G D H U Q L V U H 223 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! Innovators start here! * www.nciia.org * 413-587-2172 Supporting technology innovation and entrepreneurship in higher education to create experiential learning opportunities for students and successful, socially beneficial businesses. For Faculty Funding for courses, programs and projects. • Course & Program grants: up to $50,000 • Sustainable Vision grants: up to $50,000 Entrepreneurship training Faculty development – Base of Pyramid focus Recognition: Annual Olympus Innovation Awards Networking: NCIIA Annual ConferencH For student entrepreneurs Early stage funding (E-Team grants): up to $20,000; March Madness for the Mind: annual showcase of student innovations Biomedical design competitions Entrepreneurship training Venture Well: Mentoring and investment advice Networking: NCIIA Annual Conference Visit www.nciia.org to get involved www.nciia.org 224 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! * 413-587-2172 S 225 “e roots of humanitarian criticism, or of restricted forms of community and the promotion of equity or equality among humans, are many…… …..One root stems from the cosmopolitanism of Greek and Roman philosophy. Some ancient philosophers argued that all human beings are members of a single community….. …..Another root is Christian theology; insofar as all human beings are created by and equal in the sight of God, they are members of a common community with obligations to care for one another….. …..A third root is to be found in the moral principles of Enlighten- ment philosophy. David Hume defended sympathy as the foundational moral sentiment. Immanuel Kant argued for recognition of a categorical obligation to treat all humans as ends in themselves…..” —David R. Muñoz and Carl Mitcham (authors, Chapter 3) ____________________________________________________ “e miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy to do it” —Mother eresa IJSLE is a peer reviewed journal which publishes the original work of practitioners and researchers involved in Humanitarian Engineering, Social Entrepreneurship, Frugal Engineering and Service Learning in Engineering and seeks to nurture such efforts as a distinct body of knowledge. The primary purpose of the journal is to foster inquiry into rigorous engineering design, research and entrepreneurship efforts which are directed toward addressing problems of marginalized communities. www.ijsle.org Publicaton Journals Collaboraton Research Disseminaton Scholarship International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (IJSLE) Outreach

READ PAPER

Convergence: Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs

Convergence: Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs

Convergence: Philosophies and Pedagogies for Developing the Next Generation of Humanitarian Engineers and Social Entrepreneurs

Log In