Available at: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/3210
Date of Award
12-2025
Degree Name
MS in Mechanical Engineering
Department/Program
Mechanical Engineering
College
College of Engineering
Advisor
Benjamin David Lutz
Advisor Department
Mechanical Engineering
Advisor College
College of Engineering
Abstract
Sociotechnical thinking is the ability to recognize the interconnectedness of both technical and non-technical dimensions such as environmental, economic, social, cultural, and political factors. Although traditional engineering curriculum often emphasizes technical knowledge and skills, research suggests that engineering work is inherently sociotechnical. While sociotechnical thinking is a critical engineering skill, relatively little is understood about the nature of it or the different aspects comprised within it. To that end, this study addresses the following research question: What sociotechnical factors do engineering professionals consider in a collaborative scenario-based design activity? To answer this question, we conducted a qualitative study of engineering professionals from a wide range of experience levels and backgrounds. We created scenario-based design tasks that encouraged participants to examine the interplay between technical and non-technical factors. In groups of 2-3, participants collaborated to complete one of these tasks over a period of approximately 45 minutes. These design tasks provided participants with multiple scenarios to help guide their sociotechnical discussions. We used a combination of deductive and inductive coding to characterize the different factors discussed by participants with a focus on the breadth of factors they identified as salient. Analysis of the transcripts revealed nine distinct sociotechnical factors capturing the breadth of participants discussions. These factors showcased the wide array of technical and non-technical factors considered by participants. We also explored how participants connected these factors using simultaneous coding and code co-occurrence. Findings highlight both the wide range of factors that participants identified as well as the ways these factors overlap and intersect within discussions. From these findings, we explored several specific ways that participants engaged with sociotechnical thinking in their discussions including (1) navigating competing sociotechnical interests with tradeoffs, (2) designing for and alongside stakeholders, and (3) designing to fit in with the broader context. The ability of our data collection methods to elicit rich sociotechnical discussions from participants also highlights its effectiveness as a tool for future research and course integration. These design prompts guided participant discussions towards topics they may not have initially discussed, as well as provided them the open-ended environment to explore their interests. Additionally, assessments building off this one could also directly incorporate social and political factors often overlooked by students. Collectively, this study provides insight on what professional sociotechnical thinking is and how it might be implemented into coursework to better reflect engineering practice.