Across the world, technology permeates the modern human experience throughout one’s lifetime. Whether it is understood as a collection of objects for utility, as an activity, as a sociotechnical system or something else logically depends on individual perception, collective conversations, and formal education around it. These perceptions have changed immensely over time, creating a significant shift in how engineering is performed, taught, and considered in our contemporary society (Wisnioski 2012). This mindset has shaped the engineering disciplines to become solely fixated on technical effectiveness and execution, forcing society to be hindered by a field of study that serves to advance humankind.
This historical trend of engineering being a narrow, uni-dimensional practice that prioritizes technological advancement has created systemic barriers and limited representation from underrepresented groups. Through STEM outreach programs, we can address these inequities by reintroducing engineering as an interdisciplinary and sociotechnical field that values diverse perspectives and fosters equity in education and practice (Lucena 2024).
When we ask American students, “what is technology?”, their typical responses are not surprising: devices, social media, and machines. Although these perspectives are from younger students, this idea reflects the contemporary beliefs in public discourse that often link “technology” primarily with “computers,” similar to how previous views associated technology with machinery, tools, and industrial processes (Cohen et al. 2014, 6). Traditionally educated engineers also typically view technology as deterministic and object-oriented (Bijker 1992, 71-82). Critical theories of technology in the 1960s and 70s, and the consequent development of fields like Engineering Studies, History of Technology, and STS deconstructed and challenged the popular understanding of technology as value-free, apolitical, asocial, deterministic, and neutral (Wisnioski 2012, 10-13).
Within formal education, technology is understood as a sociotechnical system only in select spaces in certain educational environments such as Engineering Studies programs, Human Factors Engineering programs, and some humanities courses. At the primary and secondary school levels in Pennsylvania, this happens sporadically (Pennsylvania Department of Education 2023), in ways that do not begin to reinforce any idea of technology beyond the physical artifact.
The ultimate case for teaching engineering as a socio-technical process has been articulated within Engineering Studies class discussions and by Cohen et al.: the social and technical are not divorced within a “technology” (Cohen 2014). To align undergraduate education with this philosophy, the Introduction to Engineering course taught from this lens at Lafayette College has been tested and built on. This calls for the need to expand the image of technology within a younger generation by including nuanced and informed definitions such as ‘sociotechnical systems’, ‘legislators of the future’, ‘congealed knowledge’, and ‘human activity’ (Cohen, “Part 1: Introduction”). Similarly, we expect to see that introducing technology as sociotechnical systems at the middle-school level would provide a headstart in our goal of ‘making socio-technologists’.
Across the globe and specifically in the US, the image of an engineer is characterized as male, technical, and physically labor-intensive. As shown in many forms of media like television and pictures in textbooks, younger generations view an ‘engineer as the hero’ as was popular in the industrial age or as a mere political tool in the age of science (Wisnioski 2012). This viewpoint inevitably creates a particular mould that students either embrace or reject during their journey of becoming engineers (Kney 2024). This is a decision that is rooted deeply in the perception of engineers within society, which can often be discouraging for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many of these students feel as though there is neither representation nor a mere presence within the field, leading to a lack of inspiration and motivation to pursue engineering careers (Slaton 2010). This is portrayed through the overwhelming trend of demographic dominance of white, heterosexual, middle-class men in engineering, reinforcing a specific form of masculinity as the cultural norm in the field (Secules 2019). In relation, engineering curricula retain a prevalent connection between masculinity and competition within both engineering education and broader U.S. culture (Secules 2019).
This dynamic spotlights how students who were more inclined toward competitive interactions were consistently white male students who held sociological dominance within these spaces, perpetuating the exclusion of minorities from them. Non-dominant students often recognize the presence of competition but choose not to engage, explicitly distancing themselves from the dynamics that reinforced a dominant in-group and marginalized others (Secules 2019). This exclusionary culture aligns with broader demographic hierarchies in engineering, where dominance and marginality are tied to race, gender, and sociocultural identity. By privileging competition as a core value, engineering education risks perpetuating narrow perspectives that overlook the diverse approaches and collaborative practices necessary for fostering innovation and inclusion in the field (Riley 2017). Therefore, enhancing accurate and diverse perceptions of engineering will require targeted educational interventions, specifically STEM outreach programs to younger students expanding this narrow perspective of how engineers look, think, and work within the discipline.
This intervention will challenge traditional STEM education that was aimed at increasing accessibility in response to strictly adhering to scientific and technological demands. However, access to high-quality STEM education has often been accompanied by disparities based on geography, socioeconomic status, and demographic factors (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2011). This was a result of flawed policy formulation, which led to legislation that systemically created barriers for minorities to have equal education within the early 20th century. For example, the “separate but equal” doctrine, established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, lawfully established racial segregation and became the backbone of policies that systematically deprived minorities of access to essential resources, especially in education (Slaton 2010). Under this doctrine, schools for children from disadvantaged backgrounds were consistently underfunded, overcrowded, and lacked basic educational resources compared to predominantly White schools. This problem has led to a lack of diversity in the field of engineering, the creation of ineffective solutions, and the development of technologies that do not align with the values and needs of society.
To solve this issue, the school districts have prioritized the growth of engineering outreach initiatives, which aim to broaden access, inspire diverse talent, and engage underrepresented communities in pursuing engineering careers (Bakshi 2024). However, the initiatives typically favor the traditional engineering practices of the past, which re-establishes engineering as a purely technical field of study, creating fewer opportunities for sustainable growth and change within society (Riley 2017). Nonetheless, our implementation of a sociotechnical lesson, taught by a diverse group of people of color, challenges traditional engineering norms by exploring questions like “who decides the course of technology?” and “what values shape innovation?”.
By integrating interdisciplinary concepts such as human factors of engineering, life-cycle assessment, waste management, energy systems, and environmental justice, the lesson encourages students to view technology holistically and consider its societal impacts. Connecting these concepts to everyday life will help students reflect on how technology affects communities and the planet, fostering critical thinking about ethical decision-making. Our approach aims to foster a more inclusive and thoughtful perspective on technology and empower all students to pursue engineering.