Engineering Education for Sustainable Development

A Capabilities Approach

Mikateko Mathebula

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781138038905
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351709163
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Sustainable Development
• Index: Economics

This book demonstrates how the theoretical concepts of the capabilities approach can be applied in the context of engineering education, and how this could be used to add nuance to our understanding of the contribution higher education can make to human flourishing. In demonstrating the usefulness of the capability approach as a lens through which to evaluate the outputs of engineering education, the author also shows how the capability approach can be informed by, and informs, the concept of 'sustainable development' and discusses what pedagogical and curricula implications this may have for education for sustainable development (ESD), particularly in engineering. As such, the book builds on the work of scholars of engineering education, and scholars of university education at the nexus of development and sustainability.

Engineering employers, educators and students from diverse contexts discuss both the capabilities and functions that are enlarged by engineering education and the impact these can have on pro-poor engineering or public-good professionalism. The book therefore makes an original conceptual and empirical contribution to our thinking about engineering education research.

The book provides inspiration for both engineering educators and students to orient their technical knowledge and transferable skills towards the public good. It will also be of great interest to students and researchers interested in education for sustainable development more generally and to engineers who are interested in doing work that is aligned with the goals of social justice. The book will also appeal to scholars of the capability approach within higher education.

Part I

1Sustainable human development

The overarching goal

Introduction

Historically, universities have played a role in transforming societies by educating decision makers, leaders, entrepreneurs and academics who serve the public good (Lozano, 2013). However, utilitarian and human capital perspectives tend to dominate the way universities are run in current times, resulting in the development of unbalanced, over-specialized and mono-disciplinary graduates (Lozano, 2013) who see education primarily as a means to employment. While education can and should enhance human capital, people and societies also benefit from education in ways that exceed its role in preparing individuals for commodity production in industry (Boni & Walker, 2013). Also, an educational focus on employability and jobs does not say much (if anything at all) about the quality of work, or whether or not people are treated fairly and with dignity at work, or whether they are able to do and to be what they have reason to value as individual professionals or collective citizens (Boni & Walker, 2013). As Boni and Walker (2013) suggest, a human development perspective, with its core values of well-being, participation, empowerment and sustainability could be a good framework to reimagine the purpose of universities, beyond the instrumental goal of creating a workforce out of people.

This opening chapter provides the background of the book through its discussion of debates on the relationships between engineering practice, development and sustainability, as well as the role of these relationships in perpetuating and inhibiting poverty, and engineering education’s location within this complex landscape. By introducing the conceptual premise that informs the rationale behind the qualitative research upon which the book is based, namely, the capability approach, the chapter outlines the implications of defining the role of engineering education, and understanding sustainability, from a human development or freedom-centred view. Ultimately, the chapter explores concepts that can enhance our understanding of how to integrate engineering and social justice.

Development

It is necessary to identify, by reference to the freedoms of all people to do and be what they have reason to value, and by what anyone may observe, what allows us to say that certain countries are ‘developed’ while others are ‘developing’ (Rist, 2008; Sen, 1999). The point is not to compare two different sets of countries by showing that one has more of this (schools, roads, currency reserves, average calorie consumption, cars, democracy or telephones) but less of that (illiteracy, cultural traditions, children per family, ‘absolute poor’, time, skilled labour, etc.), while the other set has the reverse (Rist, 2008). Rather, the process of development, whose tempo differs in the two sets of countries and transforms them both quantitatively and qualitatively, does not concern only the countries of the ‘South’, nor only operations conducted under the auspices of ‘development cooperation’ (Rist, 2008). It is a global, historically distinctive phenomenon, whose functioning first needs to be critically explored before efforts to sustain it are pursued (Rist, 2008). As Rist argues, it may be objected that the essence of ‘development’ is not worldwide expansion of the market system:

Is it not different from mere economic growth? Does it not set itself ‘human goals’ that conflict with the cynicism of the process presented above? Is it not the generous expression of a real concern for others? Indeed, is it not a moral imperative?

(Rist, 2008: 19)

And perhaps most importantly, despite inevitable mistakes and reprehensible perversions of original intentions, ‘does it not aim to put an end to the extreme poverty that is the scourge of most of the world?’ (Rist, 2008: 19). These are reasonable questions that represent the hope of improving the conditions of life of the majority of mankind and express a willingness not to be discouraged by past setbacks (Rist, 2008). So how can we explain the inconsistency between such noble goals, and practices that get in the way of their achievement (Rist, 2008)? In keeping with Western tradition, ‘development’ was initially thought of as an intransitive phenomenon that simply ‘happens’, but the term ‘underdevelopment’ evoked not only the idea of change in the direction of particular ends but also the possibility of bringing about such change (Rist, 2008). This suggested that it is possible to ‘develop’ a region, giving ‘development’ a transitive meaning (an action performed by one agent upon another) that corresponds to a principle of social organization, while ‘underdevelopment’ became a ‘naturally’ occurring (seemingly causeless) state of being (Rist, 2008).

Until this point, global North–global South relations had been organized largely in accordance with the colonizer/colonized opposition, but the ‘developed’/‘underdeveloped’ dichotomy proposed a different relationship (Rist, 2008). Instead of the hierarchical subordination of colony to metropolis, every nation was equal in the eyes of the law, even if it was not (yet) equal in practice (Rist, 2008). Colonized and colonizer had belonged to two different and opposed universes, so that confrontation between them, in the form of national liberation struggles, had appeared unavoidable as a way of reducing the difference (Rist, 2008). Now, however, ‘underdeveloped’, ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ were members of a single family: the one might be lagging a little behind the other, but they could always hope to catch up – so long as they continued to play the same game, and their conception of development was not too different (Rist, 2008).

In this way, ‘underdevelopment’ and ‘developing’ are not the opposite of ‘development’, only its incomplete form; and an acceleration of growth was a logical way of bridging the gap (Rist, 2008). In this comparison, moreover, each nation was considered for itself: its ‘development’ was mainly an internal, self-made, self-regulating phenomenon, even if it could be ‘helped’ from outside (Rist, 2008). As Rist argues, the historical conditions that may be used to explain the ‘lead’ of some countries over others could not enter the argument, since the ‘laws of development’ are supposedly the same for all, and ‘win their way through’ with engineering and necessity (Rist, 2008: 41). Not only does this rationale obliterate the effects of conquest, colonization, slave trade, the breaking up of social structures, etc.; it also presents things as if the existence of industrialized countries did not radically alter the context in which candidates for industrialization have to operate (Rist, 2008).

For conventional thinking, the quest for a definition of development therefore lies between two equally irrepressible extremes: (1) the expression of a wish to live a better life, which seems deliberately to ignore the fact that the concrete ways of achieving it would run up against conflicting political choices; and (2) the actions (also often conflicting with one another) that are supposed eventually to bring greater happiness to the greatest possible number (Rist, 2008). The weakness of these two perspectives is that they suggest identifying ‘development’ quite narrowly: development is presented on the one hand as a subjective feeling of fulfilment that differs from individual to individual, and on the other as a series of actions for which there is no a priori proof that certain actions effectively increase valued freedoms for all people.

Sustainable development

Early discussions on sustainable development began taking place in the 1970s, prompted by concerns raised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and events such as the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment (Lélé, 1991; Mebratu, 1998; Robert, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005). The IUCN sought to bring public attention to ideas of conservation, with an emphasis that species and ecosystems should be used in a manner that allows them to go on renewing themselves indefinitely. The union’s 1980 World Conservation Strategy showed how efforts to conserve nature and natural resources needed to be integrated, with a clear understanding of their essential role in human flourishing (see IUCN, 1980).

Debates about the link between finite natural resources and development slowly began to emerge, which brought about views that existing forms of economic expansion would have to be altered (Mebratu, 1998). So the idea of ‘sustainable development’ essentially arose from apprehensions related to the over-exploitation of natural and environmental resources, the negative impact this would have on production and industrialization processes, and hence on economic activity in the future. Additionally, questionable outcomes caused by fertilizers and monocultures on ecosystems and local economies triggered the UN to be more critical about the long-term effects of large-scale technical projects common to the processes of industrialization (Lucena & Schneider, 2008). This brought widespread attention, arguably for the first time, to questions of how best to manage or sustain ‘development’. Since then the social and environmental impact and appropriateness of development activities has garnered increased attention globally, both in the media and in academic literature, and anxieties reported by environmental scientists and ecologists over the years have been recognized by policy makers and economists. These events ultimately sparked the impetus to conceptualize, operationalize and identify indicators of ‘sustainable development’, in order to generate policies for implementing a national, international and global sustainable development agenda.

The most popular or influential definition of sustainable development is the one formulated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. In the report Our Common Future, the WCED described sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987: 43). Although this formulation is often criticized for being too vague, in some ways it is useful in shaping our thinking about what we might want development to look like in the long run. First, it adds a temporal dimension to conceptions of development, prompting us to question how long development can look the way it does, and still be considered as a manifestation of positive change in society. Second, as pointed out by Anand and Sen (1996) and Mebratu (1998) there are two key concepts embedded in this definition:

1The concept of needs, especially the basic or essential needs of the world’s poor, to which priority should be given.

2The concept of limitations, particularly the restrictions imposed on the natural environment’s ability to survive the effects of human activity on it, or to renew its resources (see WCED, 1987).

Thus conceived, we cannot take it for granted that development efforts have a positive effect on or improve the lives of human beings, if they neglect the needs of the poor or limit opportunities for the environment to renew itself so that it might cater for prospective needs of both human and non-human life. Therefore, anyone driven by either long-term self-interest, or concern for poverty, or concern for intergenerational equity would arguably be willing to support the operational objectives stemming from the WCED’s definition of sustainable development (Mebratu, 1998). Such a broad definition of sustainable development lends itself to consensus because it is founded upon scientific evidence on environmental degradation, moral and ethical principles about poverty and considerations of long-term self-interest (Repetto, 1986). Therefore, theoretically, this account of sustainable development has the potential for building powerful unanimity (Mebratu, 1998). Indications of the resonance of this definition in shaping mainstream understandings of sustainability is reflected by its widespread use and frequency of citation (Robert et al., 2005).

The three dimensions that have come to be understood as the pillars of sustainable development are: the environment, the economy and society (people). According to Robert et al. (2005), much of the early literature on sustainable development focused on the economic dimension, placing emphasis on the need to maintain productivity levels in industry and wealth in parts of the world where it had been achieved, or providing employment and increasing economic participation for the world’s poor. Over time, the social dimension of sustainability has received increased...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• PART I
• PART II
• PART III
• Index