The Bridge - Issue 3, 2023 - 26

Feature
Why Community Engagement (Still) Matters?
dissent. Again, does in-depth community engagement slow
a project down? Yes, but by consciously slowing down in
this way, projects are better and project teams are more
connected with the actual needs of communities, which
allows for faster, more prudent advancement overall.
More directly in our work at the National Academy of
Engineering, through the Inclusive, Diverse, and Equitable
Engineering for All (IDEEA) outreach initiatives focused
on K-12 students, we have learned that future engineers
want to slow down to better engage with communities.
The next generation of engineers, particularly girls
and students from other groups underrepresented in
engineering, are more interested in engineering if they
see it as a career where they can meaningfully contribute
to social good [7]. As part of the academy's EngineerGirl
program, established in 2001 to bring national attention
to the exciting opportunities that engineering represents
for girls and women, high school students have served
as ambassadors trained in community engagement. The
ambassadors have introduced engineering to younger
students in their communities, focusing on students with
little access to engineering education and role models.
Through their efforts, the ambassadors have introduced
thousands of students to engineering who otherwise may
not have had the opportunity to explore the subject. Not
only do the ambassadors better understand the importance
of community engagement through direct action as they
pursue engineering careers, but all the participants also
now have a better understanding of engineering, which will
help them be more informed and responsible citizens in
the future. Community outreach and engagement can be a
tellingly fulfilling cycle.
Involving community members in the process doesn't need
to be limited to discussions, debates, and demonstrations.
The growing movement of " citizen science " can bring
community members in as active participants. Exchanging
knowledge between the community and the project team
is incredibly valuable, but taking it to the next level and
making community members collaborators in the project
can lead to all participants being more invested and better
outcomes overall [8].
Monitoring a project after it is complete is necessary for
evaluation and future work. This is standard practice in
engineering. Going back to the clean stoves example,
community members using them can report on
functionality, gather readings from monitors, and have
follow-up conversations with the project team. This was
the case in stove-related sensor projects in Uganda and
Honduras in 2017 and 2018, respectively, and led to
beneficial design changes [5]. By engaging community
members in that monitoring and evaluation process, they
become more invested in the project, and the project team
continues to learn from the community about how their
work is being used and they maintain that connection for
future projects.
Engineers have an opportunity to delve into the
successful-and not so successful-case studies of
community engagement to present a path for more
THE BRIDGE
responsible technology development, especially the
ones people least understand or are most affected by. As
sociologist James Scott observed in Seeing Like a State,
while discussing examples of the push for advancement
leading to new systems being imposed on communities,
" formal schemes or order are untenable without some
elements of the practical knowledge that they tend to
dismiss " [9]. Engineers cannot afford to discount the
knowledge and existing systems of the communities they
aim to serve. If we fail to focus on the " human " part of
humanitarian engineering and technology, we've lost
sight of its purpose.
REFERENCES
1. Lansing, J. S., Cheong, S. A., Chew, L. Y., Cox, M. P., Ringo Ho,
M. H., & Arthawiguna, W. A. (2014). Regime shifts in Balinese
subaks. Current Anthropology, 55(2), 232-239.
2. Madhavan, G. (2015). Applied Minds: How Engineers Think.
W. W. Norton & Company.
3. Natarajarathinam, M., Qiu, S., & Lu, W. (2021). Community
engagement in engineering education: A systematic literature
review. Journal of Engineering Education, 110( 4), 1049- 1077.
4. Bell, S. (2022), 8 things engineers shouldn't forget when
engaging with communities. Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil
Engineer Blog.
5. Ventrella, J., Zhang, S., & MacCarty, N. (2020). An international,
multi-site, longitudinal case study of the design of a sensor-based
system for monitoring impacts of clean energy technologies.
Design Studies, 66, 82-113.
6. Hanna, R., Duflo, E., & Greenstone, M. (2016). Up in smoke:
the influence of household behavior on the long-run impact of
improved cooking stoves. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy, 8(1), 80-114.
7. Syed, K., Mathias, M., & Hill, C. (2022). Engineering for equity:
Factors and aspirations. The Bridge, 52(2), 88-90.
8. Bell, L., Lowenthal, C., Sittenfeld, D., Todd, K., Pfeifle, S., &
Kollmann, E. K. (2017). Public engagement with science: a
guide to creating conversations among publics and scientists for
mutual learning and societal decision-making. Boston: Museum
of Science.
9. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to
Improve the Human Condition have Failed. Yale University Press.
Mary Mathias is program officer for the Inclusive,
Diverse, and Equitable Engineering for All (IDEEA) outreach
initiatives and Guru Madhavan is the Norman R. Augustine
Senior Scholar and senior director of programs at
the National Academy of Engineering.
Email: mmathias@nae.edu
The Bridge - Issue 3, 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Bridge - Issue 3, 2023
