Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainable Engineering Science for Resolving Wicked Problems

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because wicked problems are beyond the scope of normal, industrial-age engineering science, sustainability problems will require reform of current engineering science and technology practices. We assert that, while pluralism concerning use of the term sustainability is likely to persist, universities should continue to cultivate research and education programs specifically devoted to sustainable engineering science, an enterprise that is formally demarcated from business-as-usual and systems optimization approaches. Advancing sustainable engineering science requires a shift in orientation away from reductionism and intellectual specialization towards integrative approaches to science, education, and technology that: (1) draw upon an ethical awareness that extends beyond the usual bounds of professional ethics or responsible conduct of research to include macroethics, (2) adopt anticipatory and adaptive approaches to unintended consequences resulting from technological innovation that result in more resilient systems, and (3) cultivate interactional expertise to facilitate cross-disciplinary exchange. Unfortunately, existing education and research training programs are ill-equipped to prepare scientists and engineers to operate effectively in a wicked problems milieu. Therefore, it is essential to create new programs of graduate education that will train scientists and engineers to become sustainable engineering science experts equipped to recognize and grapple with the macro-ethical, adaptive, and cross-disciplinary challenges embedded in their technical research and development programs.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. With permission of Vincent Hendricks, this paper is a revised version of ideas expressed earlier in Thomas Seager and Evan Selinger’s “The Incompatibility of Industrial Age Expertise and Sustainability Science” in Expertise: Philosophical Reflections (Automatic/VIP Press: 2011), pp. 99–118.

  2. We thank Brad Allenby for this insightful way of reframing wicked problems as “conditions,” which evokes a medical analogy with chronic diseases (such as Type I diabetes) that cannot be cured but can effectively be managed.

  3. Some of the discussion of interactional expertise and related concepts appeared earlier in an NSF white paper, “Clarifying the Developmental and Pedagogical Dimensions of Interactional Expertise as a Function of Social and Psychological Relations Between Tacit and Explicit Knowledge” written by David Stone, Evan Selinger, Chris Schunn, and Barbara Koslowski for an National Science Foundation workshop called, “Acquiring and Using Interactional Expertise: Psychological, Sociological, and Philosophical Perspectives.”

  4. Given the focus of this paper, it is only possible to present a brief summary of interactional expertise that is unable to convey the nuance found in scholarly literature and emerging conversations. For example, it is often pointed out that contributory experts typically possess interactional expertise. Otherwise they would not be able to make technical judgments in their fields that display knowledge of the underlying paradigm; nor, in the case of many sciences, would they be able to communicate with experts working within their broader specialties. Furthermore, in recent list-serv discussion the term “special interactional expert” has been used to emphasize the fact that contributory experts also develop interactional expertise. They do so in the sense that many disciplines are so specialized that in-between experimentalists and theorists exist a wide range of people whom we would think of as contributory experts. These contributory experts, in fact, have very little direct contact with either the practical matters involved in the experimentation or the complex mathematics involved in the theorizing, and so, in fact, derive most of their ongoing expertise from dialogue and conversation among their peers. Special interactional experts, then, designates the category of interactional experts who are completely “non-practice-based.”

References

  • Allenby, B. (2006). Macroethical systems and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 1, 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, R. U. (1998). The price-value paradox. Ecological Economics, 25, 17–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, R. U., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Gowdy, J. M. (2001). Strong versus weak sustainability: Economics, natural sciences, and “consilience.” Environmental Ethics, 23, 155–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berardy, A., Seager, T. P., & Selinger, E. (2011). Developing a pedagogy of interactional expertise for sustainability education. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, Chicago, IL, 16–18 May 2011.

  • Borgman, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossel, H. (2000). Policy assessment and simulation of actor orientation for sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 34, 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2010). Educating students in real-world sustainability research: Vision and implementation. Innovative Higher Education, 36(2), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland, G. H., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our common future. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, L., & Truett, R. (2009). Slump shows who’s flexible, who’s not; Japanese manufacturers can soften the economic blows with their ability to add and subtract models in days rather than months. Now the Detroit 3 are primed to do the same. Automotive News, 83(6362), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C. (2007). Sustainability science: A room of its own. PNAS, 104, 1737–1738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. PNAS, 100(14), 8059–8061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 38(4), 657–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, S. (2007). Mapping sustainable development as an essentially contested concept. Local Environment, 12(3), 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, A. (2001). Technology and the contested meanings of sustainability. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovers, S. (1996). Sustainability: Demands on policy. Journal of Public Policy, 16, 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2(2), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M. (2002). Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32(5), 933–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L., & Light, S. S. (2006). Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the everglades ecosystem. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454, 940–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, M. L., Dahlben, L. J., & Isaacs, J. A. (2008). Environmental assessment of single-walled carbon nanotube processes. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3), 376–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience vs. ecological resilience. In P. C. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iijima, S. (1991). Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature, 354, 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, R., Griffin, J. P., & Graham, J. D. (2008). The benefits and costs of new fuels and engines for light-duty vehicles in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1141–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, J., & Seager, T. P. (2008). Beyond eco-efficiency: A resilience perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(7), 411–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. E. (1971). Atmospheric fluorine compounds as indicators of air movements. Nature, 230, 379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. E., Maggs, R. J., & Wade, R. J. (1973). Halogenated hydrocarbons in and over the Atlantic. Nature, 241, 194–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelcic, J. R., Crittenden, J. C., Small, M. J., Shonnard, D. R., Hokanson, D. R., Zhang, Q., et al. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: The emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 5314–5324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. (1989). In search of a new relation between science, technology, and society. Technology in Society, 11, 409–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, D., Seager, T. P., Rao, P. S. C., Park, J., & Zhao, F. (2011). A resilience perspective on biofuels production. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 7(3), 348–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, K. F., Segalas-Coral, J., & Ferrer-Balas, D. (2010). Educating engineers for/in sustainable development? What we knew, what we learned, and what we should learn. Thermal Science, 14(3), 625–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2009). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment, committee on improving risk analysis approaches used by the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E., & Oberdörster, J. (2005). Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., Stone, V., & Donaldson, K. (2007). Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective. Nanotoxicology, 1(1), 2–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Seager, T. P., & Rao, P. S. C. (2011). Lessons in risk- versus resilience-based design and management. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 7(3), 396–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffaelle, R., Robison, W., & Selinger, E. (2010). 5 Questions: Sustainability ethics. USA: Automatic/VIP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittell, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, F. S., & Molina, M. J. (1975). Chlorofluoromethanes in the environment. Reviews of Geophysics, 13(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., & Nelson, R. (2008). Three rules for technological fixes. Nature, 456, 871–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager, T. P. (2008). The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Business Strategy and Environment, 17(7), 444–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager, T. P., & Selinger., E. (2009). Experiential teaching strategies for developing ethical reasoning skills relevant to sustainability. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. Phoenix AZ, 18–22 May 2009. Available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=andarnumber=5156721andisnumber=5156678.

  • Seager, T. P., & Theis, T. L. (2003). A thermodynamic basis for evaluating environmental policy trade-offs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 4, 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager, T. P., & Theis, T. L. (2004). A taxonomy of metrics for testing the industrial ecology hypotheses and application to design of freezer insulation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 865–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffi, Y. (2007). The resilient enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. L. (1996). The ultimate resource 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. (1993). Sustainability: An Economists perspective. In R. Dorfman & N. S. Dorfman (Eds.), Economics and the environment: Selected readings. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrevik, M., Saloranta, T., Cornelissen, G., Eek, E., Fet, A. M., Breedveld, G. D., et al. (2011). Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(10), 4235–4241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talwar, S., Wiek, A., & Robinson, J. (2011). User engagement in sustainability research. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theis, T. L., Bakshi, B., Clift, R., Durham, D., Fthenakis, V., Gutowski, T., Isaacs, J., Seager T. P., Wiesner, M. R. (2011). A life cycle framework for the investigation of environmentally benign nanoparticles and products. Physica Status Solidi Rapid Research Letters. doi:10.1002/pssr.201105083

  • Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C. L., & Banas Mills, S. (2011). Moving forward on competence in sustainability research and problem-solving. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(2), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek, A., Zemp, S., Siegrist, M., & Walter, A. (2007). Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technology in Society, 29(4), 388–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., & Sarewitz, D. (2007). Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the comments of anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainability and The Built Environment, Arizona State University, Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ, USA

    Thomas Seager

  2. Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Henrietta, NY, USA

    Evan Selinger

  3. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ, USA

    Arnim Wiek

Authors
  1. Thomas Seager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan Selinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arnim Wiek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evan Selinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seager, T., Selinger, E. & Wiek, A. Sustainable Engineering Science for Resolving Wicked Problems. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 467–484 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation