Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contradictions and paradoxes in design-centric engineering education: a complex responsive processes perspective

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The 1950s saw the emergence of the science-driven model of engineering education. In the following decades, the model has been continuously challenged to incorporate aspects such as liberal arts, information & communication technology, design, entrepreneurship, innovation, sustainability, industry 4.0, and more recently, online-learning. This has triggered several initiatives at institutional and national levels, and manifested in approaches and practices for transforming engineering education. One approach that appears to be gaining attention is design-centric engineering, with its emphasis on learning-by-doing, product design and entrepreneurial orientation. While literature points to several variants of design-centric engineering and challenges in implementation, it also calls for more empirical studies and deeper theoretical inquiry into the contradictions and paradoxes that this approach might present to the students at the micro-level, and guidance on how they might make sense and find pathways of action jointly with internal and external stakeholders. This paper throws light on the contradictions and paradoxes experienced by undergraduate engineering students while implementing a design-centric engineering program at a young public-funded institute in India, involving approximately 1500+ students over a period of six years. The paper also discusses the theoretical and pragmatic aspects of the approach adopted to encourage students to make sense of the contradictions and paradoxes, namely: (a) leveraging the affordance offered by one of the courses in the program—“Sociology of Design—to synthesize engineering, design and sociological perspectives; (b) turning the contradictions and paradoxes into sources of learning and change, informed by the theory of complex responsive processes; and (c) application of multiple methods such as rich pictures, reflective writing, self-organized interactions and data analysis to enable sense-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The data discussed in this paper has emerged from classroom activities. The data collected as part of the coursework belongs to the affiliated institute as per its IPR policy. The rich pictures have been anonymized. Statistical data can be made available for any validation of the results discussed in the paper.

Code availability

Not Applicable.

Notes

  1. Five major shifts in engineering education are highlighted by Froyd et al. (2012)—science & analysis driven, outcome-based accreditation, emphasis on engineering design, student engagement and learning outcomes, and impact of information and communication technologies.

  2. A contradiction is a statement or action that is opposite to another one. According to Mowles (2015), contradictions may emerge from two characteristics of social interaction—uncertainty (the difficulty to predict others action) and ambiguity (possibility of multiple interpretations due to language). Paradox is a particular kind of contradiction where the opposites appear at the same time. For example, a picture where one half of the face may be smiling while the other half may be sad. Together, they may represent a different emotion.

  3. Majority world is a term proposed as an alternative to definitions such as third world, developing world, or south (Balaram, 2001).

  4. Positivism—a belief in a single unitary world that can be understood through scientific method—observation, reasoning and objectivity.

  5. Constructivist—a view that learning occurs through the spirit of experimentation and doing. Individuals actively construct meaning by engaging with the world.

  6. Dilemma is a situation where the participant is faced with two equally unattractive choices. Double-bind is a more extreme scenario where the participant does not have an option to withdraw.

  7. IITs were setup in the 1950–1960s. A majority of them follow the science-driven model of engineering.

  8. One credit is equivalent to one contact hour (faculty time) for a theory course; Most design and management courses were structured as two-credit courses (2 contact hours per week).

  9. Instead of department, they were called streams. They had stream coordinators instead of head of department. In addition, the leadership adopted of a strategy of encouraging engineering faculty to embrace design, management and humanities subjects instead of trying to get a humanities faculty to embrace engineering. Another notable point was the absence of people with industrial design background among the faculty.

  10. It was around this time that the Ministry of Education also encouraged several National Institutes of Technology (NITs) to adopt a design spine in their undergraduate programs (India Design Council, 2014).

  11. STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

  12. Visiting Faculty is a full-time contractual position for a period of 1–2 years, primarily hired for teaching purposes.

  13. A majority of the students could not realize that they may have involuntarily learnt more about “what not to do”.

  14. In the following semester, i.e., July–November 2016, the author volunteered to take the fifth semester course “Entrepreneurship and Management functions”. In Jan-Apr 2018 the author took the sixth semester Product Design and Prototyping course along with three like-minded faculty and through informal coalitions tried to achieve the vertical integration of courses between semesters 3–6, so that students could start with identification of a problem/need and gradually move towards realization of a prototype. This process took about 3 years.

  15. This choice was driven by the author’s prior experience in dealing with organizational change issues in the Indian IT industry using the CRP perspective.

  16. Mowles (2015) throws light on the different types of contradictions—dilemmas, double binds, contradictions and paradoxes—and their role in shaping/stalling pathways of action.

  17. Experience for most students means doing some hands-on lab work or industry internship. It is difficult for them to see that there could be something worthwhile in their experience of developing a concept on their own.

  18. The use of autobiographical writing among undergraduates to explore the link between the individual and social has been reported in sociology literature (Ribbens, 1993).

  19. The advantages of using a combination of a rich picture and in-depth interviews in gaining deeper insights into students’ identity progression has been highlighted in recent literature (Parrott, 2019).

  20. The students were asked to write their roll numbers on the back of the page to not reveal their identity to other students, and enable free exchange of ideas.

  21. It could not be done for the 2019 batch due to the pandemic.

  22. Gylfeb et al. (2019) discuss the role of irony in organizations.

  23. Students may in general view themselves as raw materials or as customers, but rarely as co-creators.

  24. They could not be continued for 2019 and 2020 due to the pandemic.

  25. The institute had decided to introduce new degree names to reflect the new curriculum. However, this was not adequately communicated or branded with the industry. Also, there were a few cases where students who applied to the public sector found it difficult to convince them to accept this new degree names.

  26. The recommendation were aligned with the principles of National Education Policy, 2020.

References

  • Andrews, J. K., McBride, G. T., & Dendy Sloan, E. (1993). Humanities for engineers. A rich paradox. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(3), 181–184.

  • Balaram, S. (2001). Universal design and the majority world. In W. F. E. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., Berg, T., & Morse, S. (2019). Towards an understanding of rich picture interpretation. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 32, 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9476-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blass, E., & Hayward, P. (2014). Innovation in higher education; will there be a role for “the academe/university” in 2025? European Journal of Futures Research, 2(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-014-0041-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, C., Dilmetz, D., Selznick, B. S., Zhang, L., & Mayhew, M. J. (2020). How the university ecosystem shapes the innovation capacities of undergraduate students—evidence from Germany. Industry and Innovation, 28(3), 307–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1784710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2019). Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5, 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.001

  • Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Kolmos, A., & Du, X. (2020). Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: A review of literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1718615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colomer, J., Teresa, S., Dolors, C., & Remigijus, B. (2020). Reflective learning in higher education: Active methodologies for transformative practices. Sustainability, 12(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corso, R. (2020). Building an innovative and entrepreneurial dimension in an institution of higher education. Higher Education for the Future, 7(2), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120930559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard,. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Hansen, C. T. (2011). Modelling paradoxes in novice and expert design. In International conference on engineering design, ICED’11, Denmark, August.

  • Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredericks, M., & Miller, S. I. (1990). Paradoxes, dilemmas, and teaching sociology. Teaching Sociology, 18(3), 347–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, 1344–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A. (2017). The in-discipline of design: Bridging the gap between humanities and engineering. Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. E., Somerville, M., & Whitney, C. (2014). A whole new engineer: The coming revolution in engineering education. Douglas, MI: Three Joy Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Puente, S. M. (2021). Design-based learning in engineering education. In I. Henze, and M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Design-based concept learning in science and technology, Vol. 17. Brill Sense, pp. 163–191.

  • Graham, R. (2018). The global state-of-the-art in engineering education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). https://jwel.mit.edu/assets/document/global-state-art-engineering-education

  • Gray, C. M., & Fernandez, T. M. (2018). When world(view)s collide: Contested epistemologies and ontologies in transdisciplinary education. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 574–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. C. (Eds.) (2013). Design anthropology: Theory and practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Gylfeb, P., Francka, H., & Vaara, E. (2019). Living with paradox through irony. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes., 155, 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haertel, T., & Terkowsky, C. (2016). Creativity versus adaption: A paradox in higher engineering education. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 26(2), 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2008). Teaching innovative design reasoning: How could C-K theory help? International conference on engineering and product design education, 4&5 September, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Huang, Z., Peng, A., Yang, T., Deng, S., & He, Y. (2020). A design-based learning approach for fostering sustainability competency in engineering education. Sustainability, 12(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang-Saad, A., Bodnar, C., & Carberry, A. (2020). Examining current practice in engineering entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419890828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • India Design Council. (2014). A concept note—design spine for undergraduate engineering students @ NIT’s. http://indiadesigncouncil.org/pdf/EngineeringDesignSpine.pdf

  • Kumar, R., & Refaei, B. (2017). Problem-based learning pedagogy fosters students’ critical thinking about writing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1670

  • Lönngren, J., Ingerman, A., & Svanström, M. (2017). Avoid, control, succumb, or balance: Engineering students’ approaches to a wicked sustainability problem. Research Science Education, 47, 805–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9529-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2018). Towards design sociology. Sociology Compass, 12(1), e12546. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, C., Pey, K., Chen, J., Luo, J., & Frey, D. (2012). Beyond R&D: What design adds to a modern research university. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 397–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., West, R. E., Rich, P. J., & Pfleger, I. (2019). It’s so wonderful having different majors working together: The development of an interdisciplinary design thinking minor. TechTrends, 63, 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0325-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2020). National education policy 2020. Govt of India. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf

  • Miranda, C., Goñi, J., & Hilliger, I. (2019). Orchestrating conflict in teams with the use of boundary objects and trading zones in innovation‑driven engineering design projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09552-2

  • Morgan, T. (2018). Philosophy of design: Enabling reflection within PBL contexts in engineering design education. International conference on engineering and product design education, 6 & 7 September, Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK.

  • Mowles, C. (2015). Managing in uncertainty: Complexity and the paradoxes of everyday organizational life. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nieusma, D. (2018). Engineering/design frictions: Exploring competing knowledge systems via efforts to integrate design principles into engineering education. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, June.

  • Parrott, P. (2019). Rich pictures in qualitative research in higher education: The student as consumer and producer in personal branding. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 171–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Oliver, S., & Johnson, D. (2006). A systems model of innovation processes in university STEM education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribbens, J. (1993). Facts or fictions? Aspects of the use of autobiographical writing in undergraduate sociology. Sociology, 27(1), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, P. A., Innella, G., & Bremner, C. (2017). Paradoxes in design thinking. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4444–S4458. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royalty, A. (2018). Design-based pedagogy: Investigating an emerging approach to teaching design to non-designers. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 125, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2017.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Baden, M. (1998). Problem based learning—Part-3: Making sense of and managing disjunction. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(1), 13–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shekhar, P., & Huang-Saad, A. (2021). Examining engineering students’ participation in entrepreneurship education programs: implications for practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(40). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00298-9

  • Stacey, R. (2001). A review of complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2003). Complexity and Group Processes: A radically social understanding of individuals. Brunner-Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2012). The tools and techniques of leadership and management: Meeting the challenge of complexity. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taura, T. (2016). Creative Design Engineering: Introduction to an interdisciplinary approach. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Diggelen, M. R., Doulougeri, K. I., Gomez-Puente, S. M., Bombaerts, G., Dirkx, K. J. H., & Kamp, R. J. A. (2021). Coaching in design-based learning: A grounded theory approach to create a theoretical model and practical propositions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09549-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinck, D. (Ed.). (2003). Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation. The MIT Press.https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2862.001.0001

  • Wafa, S. M., & Larsen, H. (2020). Exploring the complexity of participation. CoDesign, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1789172

  • Wijnia, L. (2016). The problem with problems in Problem-Based Learning: Difference between problem explaining versus problem solving. Health Professions Education, 2, 59–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winberg, C., Bramhall, M., Greenfield, D., Johnson, P., Rowlett, P., Lewis, O., Waldock, J., & Wolff, K. (2020). Developing employability in engineering education: A systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the social hold: Towards an actor-network theory design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank all the seven batches of students, and faculty, who through their responses to various gestures, contributed to this understanding. The author would also like to thank the two reviewers for their constructive comments.

Funding

This research has not been supported by any specific sources of funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Interdisciplinary Design and Innovation, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kancheepuram, Melakottaiyur, Nellikuppam Rd, Near Kandigai, Off Vandalur-Kelambakkam Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600127, India

    Sudhir Varadarajan

Authors
  1. Sudhir Varadarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sudhir Varadarajan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest or competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Varadarajan, S. Contradictions and paradoxes in design-centric engineering education: a complex responsive processes perspective. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 685–716 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09744-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09744-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation