• Home
  • In the News
  • About Katherina
    • Contact
  • Portfolio
    • List of Publications
      • Research
        • Dissertation Abstract
        • Gender Diversity in Engineering
    • Music, songs, creations
    • Speaking Events
    • EGBC Council
  • The Lokhorst Group Ventures

Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)

~ BASc, MBA, DSocSci, PastPresident Engineers and Geoscientists BC

Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)

Category Archives: APEGBC

APEGBC Q&A – Full Responses

23 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

As a component of the 2016 election process for APEGBC Council, a question and answer page was adopted at the request of members so that voters could learn more about the candidates.

I found the 1500 character maximum too limiting, so have reprinted my responses in full for your reading pleasure…

APEGBC is the regulatory authority charged with protecting the public interest with respect to the practice of engineering and geoscience in the province of BC. What is the key challenge facing APEGBC?

As a regulatory authority, the key challenge APEGBC faces right now is the risk of losing the privilege of self-regulation. Many British Columbians, members and non-members, do not have a clear understanding of what self-regulation means. We must educate our members and the general public about the benefits and requirements of a self-regulated profession. It is only by supporting self-regulation that we will have the privilege of keeping it.

Self-regulation is not only the handing out of licenses to qualified applicants. Self-regulation engages professionals in regulatory processes, such as defining the roles and responsibilities of registered members, imperative for us in APEGBC where we have great diversity in our disciplinary knowledge and expertise. Self-regulation allows professionals to effectively respond to our changing world and to ensure the safety of the increasing expanse of technology that we develop. Self-regulation enables members to guide the public in determining when a professional member should be consulted and to ensure that he or she is a member in good standing, legally permitted to fulfill these duties.

I want to take a moment here to acknowledge and commend the vast majority of our members who are clearly ethical, keeping their knowledge current and delivering high quality projects. I also want to acknowledge the work being done by my colleagues on the various committees necessary for regulation. Overall, we’re doing a great job! Let’s be proactive about self-regulation so that we remain in control of our professions.

What are the key issues facing the engineering and/ or geoscience professions?

I believe the three key issues facing our professions concern education about self-regulation, the enhancement of fairness, equity, diversity and inclusion in our professions, and the expansion of our practice guideline library.

Education About Self-Regulation

We need to provide education and promotional materials about our regulatory responsibilities, legislated for the public’s benefit, and showcase the range of activities for which it is necessary to consult with qualified professionals from APEGBC and other regulatory bodies. We need to make this information more transparent and readily available.

Education will have multiple incidental benefits, depending on how we decide to carry it out, more so if we establish this effort as founded among us as members, branches and divisions. It will serve to remind us about self-regulation’s benefits and requirements. It will mitigate some of the challenges we experience in terms of fairness, equity, diversity and inclusion. In addition, it will inform BC children and youth about career opportunities available in engineering and geoscience, thereby helping to stave off impending shortages due to retirements and growth. 

Fairness, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Recent surveys continue to highlight the disparity between the salaries of men and women in our professions. This is only one of the areas that persist in inequity, in spite of our members efforts to rectify it.

British Columbia contains one of the most inclusive societies in the world, yet we continue to exhibit the unintended consequences of implicit bias (check out Harvard University’s implicit bias project at http://www.projectimplicit.net or test yourself using one of their online Implicit Association Tests targeting gender or other biases, at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/takeatest.html).

Other ‘isms’ that we unconsciously exhibit include decisions based on age, body shape and race. We might be able to assess our members’ salary and compensation data (anonymized, of course!) to determine in which areas we require additional practice guidelines to help us become more inclusive.

Practice Guidelines

We need to expand our library of practice guidelines to ensure the broadest adoption of best practices across the province on both technical and non-technical topics.

APEGBC’s Practice Guidelines are very effective in clearing up unfortunate areas of concern by presenting best practice methods and procedures, such as those developed in swift response to major issues, like in the Forestry Sector, relating to the Mount Polley dam breach or even our current understandings about climate change. New practice guidelines for human rights and diversity are in work and additional topics can be explored as we identify areas of concern.

Interestingly, our practice guidelines have been quoted as best practice examples in the new WorkSafe BC guideline for developing written safe-work procedures (http://bit.ly/WorkSafe-Cites-APEGBC).

Looking five years ahead, what is your vision for APEGBC as a professional regulatory body in BC?

I see APEGBC as the preeminent professional regulatory body in British Columbia, recognized across Canada and around the world as the leader in maintaining professional practice and enhancing our reputation. It will be British Columbian engineers and geoscientists who will be instrumental in elevating our technological reach and societal influence to make the world a better place.

Okay, we might not get there in five years, but at least we will be on our way!

Please remember to vote!

 

About CPD

15 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

APEGBC, council, engineer, engineering, geoscience

I recently received an anonymous comment to my July Candidate Statement post in which interesting points were made around continuous professional development, CPD. I think it is likely that others may have the same viewpoints, so I am addressing them here. The three points were:

  1. The Engineers and Geoscientists Act (which requires adherence to a Code of Ethics), in conjunction with the Code of Ethics, already creates a legal requirement to maintain competence, making the CPD bylaw redundant.
  2. Suggesting that there may be engineers or geoscientists who are not conducting sufficient professional development could be construed as violating the Code of Ethics.
  3. Very few, if any, engineers or geoscientists are completing insufficient CPD.

First, to clarify, in addition to requiring the development of and adherence to a Code of Ethics, the Act mentions professional development once, in reference to possible bylaws council can create “to assist in promoting and maintaining the competency and proficiency of members and licensees” (10.1.m.1). Previous members of the association created and updated the first Code of Ethics, which refers to CPD twice, in Principles Six and Ten. Principle Six states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice and provide opportunities for the professional development of their associates.

This principle is clearly about the requirement for professional development. Therefore, my anonymous commenter is correct: together, the Act and the Code of Ethics define the legal requirement for CPD. This, however, does not make the proposed bylaw redundant. Rather, we need the bylaw to operationalize the Act and regulate the activities of our members – this is the duty of APEGBC as a self-regulating body.

One simple way to officially uphold the Act has already been piloted for the past few years as a voluntary trial: a check-box on our membership renewal webpage. Unfortunately, I am aware that a number of our members do not click the check-box specifically because it is voluntary to do so, despite completing more than the annual development requirement. As a professional association, we need to demonstrate 100% member compliance so that legislators and public alike can be fully confident that all engineers and geoscientists are conducting sufficient professional development.

The second principle relating to professional development is Principle Ten, which states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and geoscience and protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

This is the second aspect of CPD: outreach to and education of the public. CPD protects the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding by requiring not only that each professional member is, in fact, increasing their own knowledge but that they are also helping to extend the public’s knowledge about engineering and geoscience. Many members are participating in school outreach programs, giving presentations and judging science fairs. Other members are participating in public presentations or mentoring junior engineers. These activities qualify for CPD hours, too.

Principle Ten is the principle that my anonymous commenter suggests is violated if someone suggests another member may not be CPD compliant, as if such an assertion casts aspersion on APEGBC. Yet this is nonsense: identifying members at fault is good for APEGBC because it means that we are paying attention to what each other is doing so that only qualified engineers, geoscientists and licensees are permitted to practice.  There are members who have been negligent — just take a look at the disciplinary page on the website.

On a technical level, Principle Ten refers only to educating the public about our professions so that neither members nor the public misrepresent APEGBC. It does not refer to member actions, unlike Principles Seven and Nine. These two principles directly relate to members misrepresenting other professional members, highlighting our obligations to support other professionals yet report them if they do something “hazardous, illegal or unethical”. Interestingly, these two principles actually support my view that we must have the freedom to challenge the few professional members who are completing insufficient CPD as determined by their peers: those members are misrepresenting their knowledge and expertise.

For reference, Principle Seven states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Conduct themselves with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment.

Principle Nine states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Report to their association or other appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by members, licensees or others.

It is worth noting that the majority of engineers and geoscientists have been maintaining their responsibilities by taking classes, attending workshops, reading relevant trade journals and sharing knowledge with other professionals. It is, however, somewhat naïve to believe this applies to us all. I have worked with hundreds of amazing professionals who more than uphold the APEGBC Code of Ethics. Yet, I regret to say that I know of a couple who just don’t make as much time for CPD as they should. These two individuals, less than 0.5% of my professional acquaintances, have the potential to destroy the incredible reputation we share as professionals by shirking their responsibilities in some way. When we call them to task about this lack, we strengthen our profession and we show others we believe this principle to be vital. This is how we further protect the public.

I am not sure if my anonymous commenter had an actual objection to mandatory CPD, or only wished to assert that he or she thinks it is redundant. Perhaps the real objection may be similar to one of those I have heard personally or read on the CPD microsite, such as: a concern that reporting CPD will take too much time (It won’t: it only takes a couple minutes), a concern that verifiable CPD activities are too expensive (Some are, but many of the activities conscientious engineers and geoscientists undergo are verifiable and free), a concern that non-professionals are dictating to members what qualifies for CPD (Not happening: we have around a thousand member volunteers, some of whom have informed the guidelines for development requirements within their own disciplines, member to member — as for the specific activities, we each have the responsibility to decide for ourselves), a concern that non-practicing members cannot meet the practice requirement (Irrelevant: non-practicing members do not have to complete CPD because they are not practicing as engineers or geoscientists), or a concern that the requirements are too high (Through consultation with over 4000 members, the number of hours has been lowered).

What is the downside of mandatory CPD? I cannot see one. Even if having a bylaw for mandatory CPD was redundant, which it is not, the worst outcome would be wasting a minute or two in checking the box on the renewal form.

What are the benefits? Self-regulation, increased public trust, increased education, increased relevance, increased participation and engagement of members, and enhanced engineering and geoscience practice.

There is nothing to lose and much to gain with mandatory CPD.

I urge all APEGBC members to review the CPD microsite and read the considered answers to member questions. Read the requirements of other professions in BC and other engineering and geoscience regulators across Canada. Consider your own development activities and see how many of them already align with the CPD requirements. Mandatory CPD is an easy way to uphold our Act and, more importantly, public safety.

I hope this helps you make your decision as you vote on the new bylaw.

APEGBC Council Elections & Bylaw Amendments Vote Now Open

27 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

If you are an active professional member of APEGBC, please go vote. Your participation is needed and your vote matters. We are an amazing organization; let’s demonstrate our desire to make our profession relevant and fresh by achieving the highest voter turn out yet!  

VOTE NOW > Continue reading →

Published!

04 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC, Balancing gender, General

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

gender, Innovation

photo (1)

In print for the first time! (photo courtesy of Jenn Todd, P.Geo., 2014)

Well, my first article has been officially published in a journal! The article, Gender Balance in Engineering: Is this an issue worth pursuing?, was first seen in print today in Innovation Magazine, the trade journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC. This article is based on the paper I wrote as an academic writing sample for entry into a doctoral program to research the possible educational reasons why women are not entering engineering. I thought this exploration of the benefits of gender diversity in a profession and how other professions managed to attain gender balance would provide some background to justify (at least to me) doing this research. Please check it out on page 26:
http://www.digitalityworks.com/Viewers/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueID=114&PageNo=1.

(The full paper with references is in an earlier post in this blog.)

Revamped Computer Science Classes At UC Berkeley Attracting More Female Students

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

education, engineering, gender

Oh! I missed this one last week! This is very interesting: I’ll have to look into how they “reimagined” the computer science classes. From the AEEE aggregator:

The San Francisco Chronicle (2/18, Brown) reports on an introductory computer science course at UC Berkeley that has more female students than male students. Prof. Dan Garcia said the goal of the introductory course is to expand beyond “just programming,” to make the material “kind of right-brained as well.” The Chronicle reports that Berkeley and other universities have seen an increase in the number of female computer science students. The increase in female computer science students has “coincided with a reimagining of computer science classes,” the article notes.

New York Colleges Work To Increase Number Of Girls Studying Engineering

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

engineering, gender

I think the longitudinal study may be in order to see if this event really makes a difference to gender balance. From the ASEE aggregator:
Newsday (2/23, Ferrette) reported the New York Institute of Technology in Old Westbury held “Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day” last week. The goal of the NYIT event was to get more girl interested in engineering. Organizers of the event said it brought the girls “into the college engineering pipeline.” The Stony Brook University, Hofstra University and Farmingdale State College said they see some progress enrolling girls in their engineering programs. Officials at the engineering schools credit “high school science camps and other programs that support young girls.”

Study: Minorities, Women Still Underrepresented In Engineering Field

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC, General

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

engineering, gender, women

Still news to some, I suppose. From the ASEE aggregator:
US News & World Report (2/6, Neuhauser) reports that, according to an annual report from the National Science Board, minorities and women are still underrepresented in the engineering and science fields. The report said “African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives” made up ten percent of science and engineering workers in 2010, the report said. But, that is only up “from 7 percent in 1993,” according to the report. Women, the report found, are also underrepresented. Females made up less than 30 percent of engineering and science workers.

Project To Study Different Techniques For Teaching Engineering To Young Students

13 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in General, Outreach Ideas

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

education, engineering, gender, public school

From the ASEE aggregator. I will have to connect with these people when I begin my own research…

The Dracut (MA) Valley Dispatch (1/12, Feinstein) reported that a program called Exploring the Efficacy of Elementary Engineering (E4 Project) “will gauge the efficacy of different techniques for teaching engineering to” young students, fifth graders. Also, the E4 Project will “evaluate how engineering instruction affects children from groups that are underrepresented in engineering, including girls.” Christine Cunningham, who leads the E4 project, said, “Our preliminary research suggests that very young children really can master engineering concepts and practices -and that they benefit in a number of ways when engineering is part of their classroom experience.”

APEGBC Makes Self-Assessment Tool Available for Internationally Trained Professionals

10 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

engineer, foreign trained professionals, international

APEGBC has partnered with the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC (ASTTBC) and the BC Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, and Skills Training to develop an online self-assessment tool to assist internationally trained professionals entering the engineering and technology fields in BC to understand where they may fit into the job market. This tool was designed to be easy-to-use and to help individuals to determine if their qualifications are more appropriate to either register as an applied science technologist/technician with certification through ASTTBC or as a registered professional engineer with APEGBC. 

More Information >>

Ohio Bill Would Give Tax Credits To Students Who Earn STEM Degrees.

03 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by Dr. Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng., FEC, FGC(hon) in APEGBC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

degrees, engineering, higher ed, policy

Hmmm…an interesting retention policy to encourage credential completion, as seen in my ASEE aggregator email:

The Zanesville (OH) Times Recorder (1/1) reports Ohio Rep. Jay Hottinger (R-Newark) and Rep. Armond Budish (D-Beachwood) is co-sponsoring legislation that would give income tax credits to students who earn STEM degrees “and who stay in Ohio at least five years upon graduation.” Students earning associate degrees would be eligible for a $5,000 tax credit. Students earning bachelor’s degrees would be receive a $20,000 credit. Students earning master’s degrees or doctorates would get a $30,000 credit.

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • CWL planning to use tech! September 24, 2021
  • Inclusion Research Opportunity September 24, 2021
  • Inclusive presentations made easy-ish March 3, 2021
  • Pandemic May 10, 2020
  • Remembering… December 8, 2019

Archives

Follow Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon) on WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • CWL planning to use tech!
  • Inclusion Research Opportunity
  • Inclusive presentations made easy-ish
  • Pandemic
  • Remembering…

Recent Comments

Louise on Presidential updates for …
Kathy Tarnai-Lokhors… on APEGBC 2017 VP Nominee
Sarah Campden on APEGBC 2017 VP Nominee
Sarah Campden on Councillor (not VP…yet…
Sarah Campden on New Members, Life Members

Archives

  • September 2021
  • March 2021
  • May 2020
  • December 2019
  • January 2019
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • January 2018
  • June 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • February 2015
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013

Categories

  • APEGBC
  • Balancing gender
  • Events
  • General
  • Inclusion
  • Outreach Ideas

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)
    • Join 30 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Katherina Tarnai-Lokhorst, P.Eng, FEC, FGC (hon)
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...