Exploring the Position of Humanitarian Engineering in Australia

Abstract

Context: The position of an engineering field, such as a discipline, specialisation, or area of practice, reflects the body of knowledge, skills and techniques required to practice. Humanitarian Engineering, which was recognised with a 6-digital Field of Research code in 2020, works within a range of contexts and communities where there are inherent power imbalances, and decisions and actions that affect immediate livelihoods and wellbeing. This can be considered similar to fields within Engineers Australia such as Amusement Rides and Devices (an area of practice) and Fire Safety (both an area of practice and technical society). These fields do not have large memberships, but are sufficiently specialised and high risk to require dedicated scrutiny. Humanitarian Engineering can be considered to warrant similar levels of enhanced scrutiny of its practice and education. Purpose: The Engineers Australia Humanitarian Engineering Community of Practice have devised a six-item agenda for the professionalisation of Humanitarian Engineering in Australia. This seeks to bring the same level of rigour, review, and recognition to Humanitarian Engineering as for any field, area of practice or discipline of engineering. This study set out to determine a broad consensus on the position of Humanitarian Engineering within existing frameworks in response to the agenda. Approach: The study adopted a modified Delphi method in which key stakeholders and representatives of Humanitarian Engineering education and practice in Australia were invited to a workshop to openly discuss and debate the position of Humanitarian Engineering in Australia. A pre-workshop survey established a starting point for discussion at a 2-hour workshop while a post-workshop survey identified and tested key insights and findings. Outcomes: A specific position on Humanitarian Engineering in Australia was not reached during the workshop. Rather, underlying assumptions were challenged and tested. Humanitarian Engineering was indeed considered to need higher levels of review and accountability, underpinned by key values and principles. A more specific set of next steps were identified in order to address unresolved questions and provide further analysis to support a potential position. Recommendations: Humanitarian Engineering education and practice should be subject to a high level of scrutiny to ensure appropriate education and practice. Regardless of a specific position and definition, further discussion and critique from within and outside engineering in Australia must continue.