Learning to design for social justice in community‐engaged engineering
Abstract
Background: Community‐engaged learning initiatives in engineering often struggle to achieve equitable outcomes for community partners because students in such programs often possess a design‐for‐charity mindset, which is characterized by an uncritical desire to help and the design of solutions that address symptoms of inequity without meaningful community involvement. The paradigm of design‐for‐justice seeks more equitable outcomes by illuminating positions of power, leveraging community knowledge, facilitating community participation, and altering the structural causes of inequity. Purpose: Little is known about how to support students in developing a design‐for‐justice mindset. This work investigated how students in one particular community‐engaged engineering program with a social justice orientation learned to shift mindsets from charity toward justice. Method: I conducted a case study of a community‐engaged engineering learning project during a single academic term using participant observations and semi‐structured interviews of eight undergraduates with varying levels of project experience. I performed thematic analysis to identify learning processes students employed in making mindset shifts. Results: Students employed four primary learning processes in developing and deepening a design‐for‐justice mindset: (1) drawing upon prior experience with inequity; (2) connecting to course content; (3) imitating experienced team members; and (4) empathizing with community members. The three core elements of the program experience—introductory course, laboratory course, and field practicum—each fostered shifts along distinct mindset dimensions. Conclusion: This research offers insights into creating community‐engaged engineering learning experiences that may help students shift toward a design‐for‐justice mindset and has broader implications for how all engineering students might develop socio‐technical thinking skills.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A community-engaging approach has been shown to be effective in helping engineering students shift their mindset from charity to thinking for the community, to advocate for social justice, and to develop meaningful empathy for specific communities.
“A community-engaging approach has been shown to be effective in helping engineering students shift their mindset from charity to thinking for the community, to advocate for social justice, and to develop meaningful empathy for specific communities [48, 66].”
From Robots for Social Justice (R4SJ): Toward a More Equitable Practice of Human-Robot Interaction (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 55
- Authors
- Reynante, B.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reynante, Brandon
- ORCID
- Reynante, Brandon
- Venue
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-12-26
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 338-356
- ISSN
- 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-9830
- OpenAlex
- W4200369758
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 13.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Development › Engineering Education and Global Impact
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Engineering Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Service-Learning and Community Engagement
- Keywords
- social justice, mindset shift, engineering students, community participation, structural inequality, community knowledge, empathy, equity in engineering education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review