Comparative Study on Faculty Decision-Making in Engineering Education for Sustainable Development

Sustainable development (SD) is a critical global issue focused on addressing the needs of the people and planet [1]. While engineers are not solely responsible for achieving a sustainable future, they do play a significant role, as highlighted by professional codes of ethics [2]. Consequently, education for sustainable development is increasingly prevalent across engineering disciplines [3]-[5]. But while journals and conferences report numerous examples of courses that implement SD, how and to what extent these concepts are incorporated varies across engineering disciplines, institutions, and countries. Current research on engineering education for sustainable development (EESD) focuses heavily on curricula and student learning; far less work has examined the faculty who engage in EESD. Given that curricula ultimately depend on faculty, this study explores faculty experiences with EESD by asking, “What factors influence engineering faculty who engage in EESD?” To answer this question, our exploratory study considers faculty in two comparable research-intensive universities, one in the U.S. (LP-US) and one in Denmark (LP-D), to examine faculty choices to incorporate the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into engineering courses. Given the exploratory nature of the study, we included participants from any engineering discipline. Our analysis draws on Lattuca and Pollard's (2016) model of faculty decision-making, which defines three sources of influence: 1) external influences, such as national policies, industry demands, and accreditation standards; 2) internal influences, such as practices, culture, and values at the institution and department level; and 3) individual influences, such as personal knowledge, beliefs, and experiences. Using semi-structured interviews with faculty and key informants at each site, along with documents such as university mission statements and course syllabi, this study situates engagement in EESD in a global context to understand how both national and institutional factors impact local practices. The findings suggest that while external, internal, and individual influences are present in each case, the salience of each influence and the interactions between themes differs across sites. For example, at LP-D, faculty decisions on the inclusion of the SDGs are heavily influenced by the national and institutional culture. Due to European and national priorities, institutions receive more funding for research and educational practices that work towards SD, and the SDGs are heavily integrated into engineering education broadly, especially in project-based courses. While individual influences do exist, they are supported and dominated by internal and external ones. In contrast, at LPUS, faculty integration of the SDGs is predominantly influenced by individual values, teaching beliefs, and interests. Initiatives to practice EESD operate at an individual level, with significant variation in practice depending on departmental support, time, and resources. Moreover, incorporating SD into engineering courses is more implicit than explicit. Recently, external influences, such as university ranking systems, have affected internal factors such as institutional goals and missions, but these influences are relatively new and limited in their impact, with EESD remaining localized and ad hoc. The findings point to the ways that external influences, national funding structures, and priorities play an important role in the widespread integration of the SDGs into engineering courses and curricula.