Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Whole-Person Education for AI Engineers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Whole-person education—ethics, global perspective, and interdisciplinary collaboration—should be core to AI engineering curricula, argue twenty educators and practitioners through collaborative autoethnography.

desk verdict Honest, diverse advocacy for whole-person AI education, but its central claim is a restatement of the authors' own selection, so it reads better as a position statement than as research findings. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09185 v1 pith:KDL5PCRG submitted 2025-06-10 cs.CY

Rubaina Khan , Tammy Mackenzie , Sreyoshi Bhaduri , Animesh Paul , Branislav Radeljić , Joshua Owusu Ansah , Beyza Nur Guler , Indrani Bhaduri
show 13 more authors
Rodney Kimbangu Nils Ever Murrugarra Llerena Hayoung Shin Lilianny Virguez Rosa Paccotacya Yanque Thomas Mekhaël Allen Munoriyarwa Leslie Salgado Debarati Basu Curwyn Mapaling Natalie Perez Yves Gaudet Paula Larrondo
This is my paper
classification cs.CY
keywords whole-personeducationAIengineeringcollaborativeautoethnographytechnologicalneutralitytechnosaviourismethicsinterdisciplinarycurriculum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that current AI engineering education, by focusing almost exclusively on technical proficiency, produces engineers unprepared for the ethical and societal weight of their work. Drawing on collaborative autoethnography with twenty international author-participants, it claims that whole-person education—integrating ethics, global perspectives, interdisciplinary collaboration, and social responsibility—should be a core part of AI engineering curricula. The authors challenge the idea that technology is neutral and reject technosaviourism, arguing instead that AI systems embody the values and power structures of their creators. If the finding holds, AI engineering programs would need substantial reform in how they teach, evaluate, and accredit future engineers.

What carries the argument

The methodological machinery is collaborative autoethnography (CAE) combined with reflexive thematic analysis. Twenty author-participants from diverse global backgrounds, acting as both researchers and data sources, produced written reflections responding to prompts and then engaged in dialogic and synchronous sessions. The six-phase thematic analysis process (familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing, defining, writing up) organizes these narratives into the paper's motivational and visionary themes. Conceptually, the paper uses whole-person education as the theoretical lens, connecting it to value-sensitive design, inclusive design, and participatory design frameworks.

What would settle it

A comparative study tracking AI engineering graduates from whole-person-integrated programs versus traditional technical programs could test the claim: if both groups show equivalent ethical reasoning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and societal impact in their work, the paper's central premise would not hold. Alternatively, a large-scale survey of AI engineering educators and practitioners asking whether they see the same gaps in current curricula would provide evidence for or against the universality of the reported motivations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that whole-person education is necessary for AI engineering education. The paper states that "our findings strongly reaffirm a pressing need for a holistic, interdisciplinary AI education." Participants' reflections, analyzed through thematic analysis, yield five motivations—global and culturally responsive education, bridging academia and industry, ethics as foundational, interdisciplinary learning, and democratization of AI education—and a vision for curricula that challenge technological neutrality, move beyond technosaviourism, center interdisciplinarity, design user-centered inclusive curricula, and prioritize ethical leadership and lifelong learning. The paper presents this as a call to reconceptualize engineering education so that AI engineers act as stewards of sociotechnical systems rather than neutral builders.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on the assumption that the autoethnographic reflections of twenty self-selected advocates for whole-person education are representative of what AI engineering education broadly needs; if those reflections are not generalizable, the prescriptive force of the argument weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI engineering curricula would integrate ethics, social responsibility, and interdisciplinary collaboration as core components rather than optional add-ons.
  • Engineering programs would teach transparency as an ethical design principle, not just code documentation.
  • Graduates would be expected to question technological neutrality and technosaviourism, recognizing AI systems as sociotechnical artifacts.
  • Curricula would need to incorporate global and culturally responsive perspectives, bridging the gap between academia and industry.
  • AI education would aim to cultivate ethical leaders with lifelong learning mindsets, not merely proficient coders.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If whole-person education becomes standard, accreditation bodies and industry hiring criteria may need to define and assess competencies like ethical discernment and interdisciplinary teamwork, which are harder to measure than technical skills.
  • The same autoethnographic approach could be extended to other emerging technologies, such as biotechnology or autonomous systems, where similar neutrality myths shape education and practice.
  • The paper's emphasis on global perspectives suggests that AI ethics curricula designed in the Global North may need local co-creation with engineers and communities in the Global South to avoid replicating the very exclusions the authors identify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a collaborative autoethnographic study of the need for whole-person education in AI engineering education. Twenty-one (elsewhere fourteen or twenty) author-participants from academia, industry, and non-engineering fields contributed written reflections and took part in two synchronous sessions. Using thematic analysis, the authors identify five motivations (global and culturally responsive education, bridging academia and industry, ethics as foundational, interdisciplinary learning, democratization of AI education) and five future-oriented visions (challenging technological neutrality, moving beyond technosaviourism, centering interdisciplinarity, user-centered curricula, ethical leadership). The paper concludes that the findings strongly reaffirm a pressing need for holistic, interdisciplinary AI education and offers implications and recommendations for curriculum transformation.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to engineering education discourse by foregrounding ethical, social, and interdisciplinary dimensions of AI training from a diverse set of global voices. The paper's strengths are its transparent use of collaborative autoethnography, its explicit affirmation of subjectivity as a feature of the method, its geographically diverse author-participant group, and its rich appendix of personal reflections. It also usefully challenges technological neutrality and technosaviourism. However, the evidence base is a self-selected group of whole-person education advocates reflecting on their own advocacy, which cannot independently establish a pressing need. The paper is best read as a collective position statement or illustrative qualitative inquiry; the generalizing language in the abstract and discussion overreaches the method's evidentiary scope.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim that 'our findings strongly reaffirm a pressing need for a holistic, interdisciplinary AI education' is not supported by the study design. RQ1 explicitly targets 'whole-person education advocates,' the author-participants are self-selected advocates, Figure 3's prompts ask participants to elaborate on their advocacy, and the appendix contains no dissenting, skeptical, or ambivalent voices. The conclusion therefore largely restates the selection criterion rather than independently establishing a 'pressing need.' The Limitations section (Section VI) appropriately notes that the method does not aim for generalizability, but the abstract and Section IV use unqualified language ('AI engineers are equipped not only with...', 'a pressing need'). I recommend reframing the findings as the collective perspective of a self-selected group of advocates, or supplementing the study with external evidence such as curriculum audits, employer-demand analyses, or student outcome data before making the general claim.
  2. The participant count is inconsistent: the Abstract says 'fourteen diverse stakeholders,' Section III says 'The research team consisted of twenty one participants,' and later the same section states that 'twenty participants initially responded' and that additional author-participants 'bring[ing] the total number of contributing participants to twenty.' Because the author-participants' reflections are the entire dataset, this discrepancy is not cosmetic; it obscures the evidentiary basis of the study. Please reconcile the participant count throughout and report exactly how many participants contributed at each stage.
  3. The thematic analysis is described as following the six-phase process of Braun and Clarke [49], but the paper does not report how coding disagreements were resolved, how the synchronous sessions contributed to theme validation, or whether analytic memos or coding trails were produced. The claim of enhanced 'trustworthiness' through collective reflexivity is asserted but not evidenced. Given that the central finding rests entirely on the authors' own analysis of their own reflections, a brief account of the coding process, disagreement resolution, and reflexive checks would strengthen the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. The phrase 'Engineers’s decisions' contains a typo and should be 'Engineers’ decisions.'
  2. The phrase 'technosavvy' appears where 'technosaviourism' is clearly intended; please correct the terminology for consistency with Section II.
  3. The citation placeholder '[cite: , preparatory, and secondary level' is incomplete and should be replaced with the actual reference or removed.
  4. Reference [35] ('B. RADELJIC, AI as a new public intellectual?') lacks publication venue, year, and page or DOI details; please complete it.
  5. The caption states the prompts 'highlighting their advocacy for whole person education,' which makes the confirmatory framing explicit; consider rewording the caption to neutrally describe the prompts themselves.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The 'pressing need' finding restates the advocate-sample inclusion criterion, making the central claim circular by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section I (RQ1), Section III (Method), Section IV opening]
    "RQ1: For whole-person education advocates, what factors influence their support for integration into engineering education, especially as it pertains to AI? ... Through a global lens, our findings strongly reaffirm a pressing need for a holistic, interdisciplinary AI education."

    The sample is defined by advocacy for whole-person education, the data are the author-participants' own written reflections, and the method explicitly affirms subjectivity as a feature. The Section IV 'finding' that there is a pressing need for whole-person AI education is therefore a restatement of the inclusion criterion: advocates were asked why they advocate, and their answers are reported as evidence of need. No independent evidence (curriculum audits, employer demand analyses, student outcome data) is introduced, so the conclusion is entailed by the sample definition rather than derived from external observation.

  2. other [Section VII, Fig. 3 caption]
    "Fig. 3: Three prompts that each author-participant responded to - highlighting their advocacy for whole person education"

    The reflective prompts themselves are framed around eliciting advocacy for whole-person education. The resulting narratives are then thematically summarized in Section IV as 'findings' that reaffirm the same advocacy. The instrument is designed to solicit affirmations of the paper's premise, and the conclusions are those affirmations restated, so the data-collection step is aligned with the conclusion by construction.

full rationale

The central finding is not derived from independent evidence; it is the reflexive output of the sample definition. The paper's RQ1 restricts participants to 'whole-person education advocates,' the method states that the researchers are both instruments and data and 'affirm[s] that subjectivity is a feature,' and the appendix presents uniformly affirming narratives elicited by prompts 'highlighting their advocacy.' Section IV then reports that these reflections 'strongly reaffirm a pressing need' for the very approach the participants were recruited to advocate. This is equivalent to asking advocates whether they advocate and reporting their answer as a finding. The Limitations section concedes that the 'subjective nature of the method warrants caution regarding generalizability,' but the abstract and Section IV use unqualified language ('AI engineers are equipped not only with...', 'a pressing need'). No external data are introduced, so the headline claim reduces by construction to the selection criterion. The paper's self-citations are not load-bearing for this reduction; the circularity lies in the sample-definition-to-conclusion step. The work may be valuable as a position statement or as an illustration of advocate perspectives, but as a research finding of 'pressing need' it is circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on theoretical commitments (technology is not neutral, whole-person education is beneficial) and on the assumption that the self-selected author-participants' reflections provide a sufficient basis for general curriculum recommendations. No free parameters or invented entities are involved.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Technology is not neutral; it embodies political and social values.
    Adopted from philosophy of technology (e.g., Winner) in Section II.A to argue that AI systems are value-laden; used to motivate the need for ethics education. This is a contested theoretical stance, not an empirical fact.
  • domain assumption Whole-person education is an appropriate and beneficial framework for engineering education.
    The paper assumes this theoretical approach is desirable and applicable, citing Podger et al. [5] and Vanasupa [2] without empirical testing in the AI engineering context.
  • domain assumption The autoethnographic reflections of the participants provide trustworthy insight into educational needs.
    Stated in Section III; the paper affirms that subjectivity is a feature, not a flaw, and uses the authors' own reflections as the primary data source.
  • domain assumption The 21 author-participants are sufficiently diverse and representative to inform general recommendations.
    The paper describes the team as having 'distinct global backgrounds' (Section III), but the sample is self-selected and may not represent the broader population of AI engineering educators, practitioners, and students.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Whole-Person Education for AI Engineers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDL5PCRG

@misc{pith2026250609185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Whole-Person Education for AI Engineers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDL5PCRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09185}
}
read the original abstract

This autoethnographic study explores the need for interdisciplinary education spanning both technical and philosophical skills - as such, this study leverages whole-person education as a theoretical approach needed in AI engineering education to address the limitations of current paradigms that prioritize technical expertise over ethical and societal considerations. Drawing on a collaborative autoethnography approach of fourteen diverse stakeholders, the study identifies key motivations driving the call for change, including the need for global perspectives, bridging the gap between academia and industry, integrating ethics and societal impact, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. The findings challenge the myths of technological neutrality and technosaviourism, advocating for a future where AI engineers are equipped not only with technical skills but also with the ethical awareness, social responsibility, and interdisciplinary understanding necessary to navigate the complex challenges of AI development. The study provides valuable insights and recommendations for transforming AI engineering education to ensure the responsible development of AI technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map visualizing author participants to their current regions of residence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Select snippets of reflections from author-participants, advocating for whole-person education. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three prompts that each author-participant responded to - highlighting their advocacy for whole person education [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Using thematic analysis in psychology,

    V . Braun and V . Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006

    2006

  2. [1]

    Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty mem- bers define

    A. L. Pawley, “Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty mem- bers define ”engineering.”,” Journal of Engineering Education , vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 309–319, 2009. CEEA-AC´EG25; Paper 413 Polytechnique Montr ´eal; June 17 – 21, 2025 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. – 8 of 21 – Peer re...

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Awakening engineering education,

    L. Vanasupa, “Awakening engineering education,” in The Hidden Cur- riculum in Doctoral Education . Springer, 2020, pp. 133–144

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    D. W. Orr, Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. SUNY Press, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [4]

    M. C. Nussbaum, Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities . Princeton University Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    A whole-person approach to educating for sustainability: Developing a values-based and systemic approach to transformative learning,

    D. Podger, E. Mustakova-Possardt, and A. Reid, “A whole-person approach to educating for sustainability: Developing a values-based and systemic approach to transformative learning,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 339–352, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    J. C. Tronto, Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge, 1993

    work page 1993

  8. [7]

    Crawford, Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work

    M. Crawford, Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work . Penguin Press, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Mapping value sensitive design onto ai for social good principles,

    S. Umbrello and I. van de Poel, “Mapping value sensitive design onto ai for social good principles,” AI and Ethics, vol. 1, pp. 283–296, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    B. S. B. Chan and V . C. M. Chan, Whole person education in East Asian universities: Perspectives from philosophy and beyond . Routledge, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    J. P. Miller, The holistic curriculum. University of Toronto press, 2019

    2019

  4. [11]

    Work in progress: Coloring outside the lines-exploring the potential for integrating creative evaluation in engineering education,

    C. D. Edwards, B. Peterson, S. Bhaduri, C. J. McCall, and D. S. ¨Ozkan, “Work in progress: Coloring outside the lines-exploring the potential for integrating creative evaluation in engineering education,” in 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Modern pedagogical technologies and their application in the work of teachers of a vocational (vocational-technical) education institution,

    A. Maksiutov, “Modern pedagogical technologies and their application in the work of teachers of a vocational (vocational-technical) education institution,” Pedagogy and education management review , no. 1 (15), pp. 32–43, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Modern educational technologies in pro- fessional training of student in technical institutes of higher education,

    D. Izvorska and S. Kartunov, “Modern educational technologies in pro- fessional training of student in technical institutes of higher education,” Proceedings TIE 2022 , 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Technological neutrality and conceptual singularity,

    M. D. R ´ıos, “Technological neutrality and conceptual singularity,” Available at SSRN 2198887 , 2013

    2013

  8. [15]

    Winner, Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought

    L. Winner, Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought . Mit Press, 1978

    1978

  9. [16]

    Do artifacts have politics?

    ——, “Do artifacts have politics?” in Computer ethics . Routledge, 2017, pp. 177–192

    2017

  10. [17]

    Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification,

    J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, “Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification,” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , vol. 81, pp. 1–15, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html

    2018

  11. [18]

    Benjamin, Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code

    R. Benjamin, Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code. Polity, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach,

    A. Birhane, “Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach,” Pat- terns, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 100205, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Anatomy of an ai system: The amazon echo as an anatomical map of human labor, data and planetary resources,

    K. Crawford and V . Joler, “Anatomy of an ai system: The amazon echo as an anatomical map of human labor, data and planetary resources,” AI Now Institute and Share Lab, Tech. Rep., 2018. [Online]. Available: https://anatomyof.ai/

    2018

  14. [21]

    Critical race theory of society,

    T. Zuberi, “Critical race theory of society,” Conn. L. Rev. , vol. 43, p. 1573, 2010

    2010

  15. [22]

    The tescreal bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence,

    T. Gebru and ´E. P. Torres, “The tescreal bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence,” First Monday, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Pasquale, The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information

    F. Pasquale, The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information . Harvard University Press, 2015

    2015

  17. [24]

    Accountability in algorithmic decision making,

    N. Diakopoulos, “Accountability in algorithmic decision making,” Com- munications of the ACM , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 56–62, 2016

    2016

  18. [25]

    Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability,

    M. Ananny and K. Crawford, “Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability,” New Media & Society , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 973–989, 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    The intuitive appeal of explainable machines,

    A. D. Selbst and S. Barocas, “The intuitive appeal of explainable machines,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 1085–1139, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    Inclusive design: Design for the whole population,

    P. J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon, “Inclusive design: Design for the whole population,” 2013

    2013

  21. [28]

    Fundamentals of inclusive hci design,

    J. Abascal and L. Azevedo, “Fundamentals of inclusive hci design,” in Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity, C. Stephanidis, Ed. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, vol. 4554, pp. 3–9

    2007

  22. [29]

    The value of being different,

    J. Treviranus, “The value of being different,” in Proceedings of the 16th international web for all conference , 2019, pp. 1–7

    2019

  23. [30]

    What is participatory design?

    S. Bødker, C. Dindler, O. S. Iversen, and R. C. Smith, “What is participatory design?” in Participatory Design. Springer International Publishing, 2004, pp. 5–13

    2004

  24. [31]

    Participatory design; the third space in hci. in, j. jacko,

    M. MULLER and A. Druin, “Participatory design; the third space in hci. in, j. jacko,” The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , 2012

    2012

  25. [32]

    A survey of value sen- sitive design methods,

    B. Friedman, D. G. Hendry, A. Borning et al., “A survey of value sen- sitive design methods,” Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 63–125, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    Considerations for ai fairness for people with disabilities,

    S. Trewin, S. Basson, M. Muller, S. Branham, J. Treviranus, D. Gruen, D. Hebert, N. Lyckowski, and E. Manser, “Considerations for ai fairness for people with disabilities,” AI Matters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 40–63, 2019

    2019

  27. [34]

    Boyle, The Line: AI and the Future of Personhood

    J. Boyle, The Line: AI and the Future of Personhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2024

    2024

  28. [35]

    Ai as a new public intellectual?

    B. RADELJIC, “Ai as a new public intellectual?”

  29. [36]

    What we do not know: Gpt use in business and management,

    T. Mackenzie, B. Radeljic, L. Salgado, A. Paul, R. Khan, A. Tursun- bayeva, N. Perez, and S. Bhaduri, “What we do not know: Gpt use in business and management,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05273 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Decoding the diversity: A review of the indic ai research landscape,

    S. KJ, V . Jain, S. Bhaduri, T. Roy, and A. Chadha, “Decoding the diversity: A review of the indic ai research landscape,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09559, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Moral zombies: why algorithms are not moral agents,

    C. V ´eliz, “Moral zombies: why algorithms are not moral agents,” AI & society, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 487–497, 2021

    2021

  32. [39]

    Unraveling the hidden environmental impacts of ai solutions for environment life cycle assessment of ai solutions,

    A.-L. Ligozat, J. Lefevre, A. Bugeau, and J. Combaz, “Unraveling the hidden environmental impacts of ai solutions for environment life cycle assessment of ai solutions,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 5172, 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    Princi- ples to practices for responsible ai: closing the gap,

    D. Schiff, B. Rakova, A. Ayesh, A. Fanti, and M. Lennon, “Princi- ples to practices for responsible ai: closing the gap,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04707, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Reimagining ai conference mission statements to promote inclusion in the emerging institutional field of ai,

    T. Mackenzie, S. Bhaduri, L. Salgado, A. Paul, P. Herholz, Z. Rosenthal, R. Khan, and D. Basu, “Reimagining ai conference mission statements to promote inclusion in the emerging institutional field of ai,” in 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–9

    2024

  35. [42]

    Sustainable development as a meta-context for engineering education,

    K. Mulder, C. Desha, and K. Hargroves, “Sustainable development as a meta-context for engineering education,” Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 304–310, 2013

    2013

  36. [43]

    Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support,

    A. Van den Beemt, M. MacLeod, J. Van der Veen, A. Van de Ven, S. Van Baalen, R. Klaassen, and M. Boon, “Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support,” Journal of engineering education, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 508–555, 2020

    2020

  37. [44]

    Chang, Autoethnography as Method

    H. Chang, Autoethnography as Method . United Kingdom: Left Coast Press, 2008

    2008

  38. [45]

    Collaborative autoethnography,

    H. Chang, F. W. Ngunjiri, and K.-A. C. Hernandez, “Collaborative autoethnography,” 2016

    2016

  39. [46]

    “we make the village

    K. Battel, N. Foster, L. V . Barroso, S. Bhaduri, K. Mandala, and L. Erickson, ““we make the village”-inspiring stem among young girls and the power of creative engineering education in action,” in2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  40. [47]

    J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage Publications, 2017

    2017

  41. [48]

    Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity,

    C. Ellis and A. P. Bochner, “Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity,” in Handbook of qualitative research , 2nd ed., N. Denzin and Y . Lincoln, Eds. Sage Publications, 2000, pp. 733–768

    2000

  42. [50]

    (multi-disciplinary) teamwork makes the (real) dream work: Pragmatic recommendations from industry for engineering classrooms,

    S. Bhaduri, K. Ohnemus, J. Blackburn, A. Mittal, Y . Dong, S. LaFerriere, R. Pulvermacher, M. Dias, A. Gil, S. Sadighi et al., “(multi-disciplinary) teamwork makes the (real) dream work: Pragmatic recommendations from industry for engineering classrooms,” 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Preparing engineering students to find the best job fit: Starting early with the career develop- ment process,

    C. Carrico, H. M. Matusovich, and S. Bhaduri, “Preparing engineering students to find the best job fit: Starting early with the career develop- ment process,” in 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Path to personalization: A systematic review of genai in engineering education,

    R. Khan, S. Bhaduri, T. Mackenzie, A. Paul, S. KJ, and I. Sen, “Path to personalization: A systematic review of genai in engineering education,” in KDD AI4Edu Workshop, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    The role of innovation capability in enhancing sustainability in smes: An emerging economy perspective,

    H. Heenkenda, F. Xu, K. Kulathunga, and W. Senevirathne, “The role of innovation capability in enhancing sustainability in smes: An emerging economy perspective,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 17, p. 10832, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Beijing’s big brother tech needs african faces,

    A. Hawkins, “Beijing’s big brother tech needs african faces,” Foreign Policy, vol. 24, 2018

    2018

  47. [55]

    A framework for comparing large-scale survey assessments: contrasting india’s nas, united states’ naep, and oecd’s pisa,

    P. van Rijn, H.-H. Por, D. F. McCaffrey, I. Bhaduri, and J. Bertling, “A framework for comparing large-scale survey assessments: contrasting india’s nas, united states’ naep, and oecd’s pisa,” in Frontiers in Education, vol. 9. Frontiers Media SA, 2024, p. 1422030. CEEA-AC´EG2...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.