• 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)

Tag Archives: engineering

Inclusion Research Opportunity

24 Friday Sep 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

engineering, equality, gender, STEM

I just heard from my contacts at ACEC-BC about opportunities to participate in inclusion research with the University British Columbia. Here’s what I received today:

Please share these opportunities with anyone in your organization and networks who may be interested in participating.

Project RISE: Inclusive Innovation Research Project Rise banner

Project RISE invites you and a research partner to take part in an innovative, federally funded gender equality research project on advancing inclusion in the workplace. In volunteering to participate in the virtual study, you will learn evidence-based strategies for promoting a culture of inclusion for all people working in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. For more details about time commitment, data privacy, and participants’ rights, please see the consent form in the sign-up survey (Volunteer Sign-Up) or the FAQ (Link).

In addition to seeking volunteers for the scheduled workshop pair, the Project RISE team is also seeking additional organizational partners to participate in the (free of charge) virtual study. If your organization is interested in participating or if you would like to recommend an organization to participate, we would appreciate hearing from you! Please email rise@psych.ubc.ca.

UBC Research: Immigrants’ Professional Impacts in the Engineering Profession Immigrants' Professional Impacts research

UBC is looking for individuals to participate in a research project looking at the impacts on the profession of immigrant engineers.  They are looking for immigrant engineers who have contributed to significant changes in a number of areas within the profession including policy change, managerial practices, innovation, entrepreneurship, and professional education.  Attached is a document with more information.

Regional Engagements Sessions for Indigenous Leadership in Technology: Understanding Access and Opportunities in BCRegional Engagements Sessions for Indigenous Leadership in Technology: Understanding Access and Opportunities in BC banner

The First Nations Technology Council, in partnership with the Information and Communications Technology Council and Reciprocal Consulting is working on a first-of-its-kind project, called “Indigenous Leadership in Technology: Understanding Access and Opportunities in BC.” Through research and engagement with Indigenous peoples and communities, and technology and technology-enabled industry employers, we are seeking to increase Indigenous participation in technology and innovation and better understand the actions, resources, and supports that are needed for Indigenous peoples and communities to gain access to, and maximize opportunities in, the digital age. A number of virtual regional engagement sessions are scheduled to be held over fall 2021 to workshop topics and themes that have emerged from our research. For more information visit: www.technologycouncil.ca/ILIT

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.

UK STEM Gender Gap increasing?

23 Monday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

engineering, gender, STEM, UK

From my good friend, Gord Stuart, another great and relevant article. I’m curious whether this is simply in response to confusion around a new educational system. Warrants further investigation in my mind…

From ACM TechNews: Female Tech Staff ‘in Decline’ in the U.K. BBC News. The gender gap in the U.K. information technology industry is getting worse, according to a new report from BCS, the chartered institute for IT, and E-Skills U.K. The Women in IT scorecard indicates women account for just 16 percent of the British IT workforce. Moreover, the study found the problem starts early, considering girls consistently outperform boys in computing A-level results, but only account for 6.5 percent of test-takers. Girls also make up only 13 percent of entries for computer science General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs). Meanwhile, the proportion of women working as self-employed IT specialists has doubled over the past decade, and women earn 16 percent less on average than men. “The continuing decline in women entering the IT profession is a real threat for the U.K. and an issue that clearly we need to address,” says BCS Women chairwoman Gillian Arnold. E-Skills U.K. CEO Karen Price also notes “this joint report provides the evidence we need to face the problem head-on, and to develop hard hitting and effective interventions to solve it.”

“Brazuca” World Cup Ball Represents Cutting Edge Technology

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

brazuka, engineering, Innovation, sport

From the ASEE aggregator, a very interesting engineering application:

In a post for LiveScience (6/18, Gupta), Nikhil Gupta, an associate professor of composite materials at NYU, writes that since 1970 Adidas has resigned the official ball of the World Cup, and that it often “incorporated materials and technologies that were innovative advances for their time.” The Brazuca ball for the 2014 World Cup, is no exception and it is an “example of cutting-edge engineering and advanced materials.”

There is video from the lab in the LiveScience article, or view this talkSPORT review by two renown players:

Stanford Hires First Female Dean Of School Of Engineering

10 Tuesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

education, engineering, gender, women

Very interesting… I may have to interview her for my research. Later. From the ASEE aggregator:

Kristin Brown writes in “The Tech Chronicles” blog of the San Francisco Chronicle (6/5), Stanford just hired Persis Drell as its first female dean of its school of engineering. Brown calls this “a small step” but “a big deal” for the field in which “women are vastly outnumbered by men.” It is a movement towards changing the perception of engineering as a masculine field, which is “a major obstacle” to women pursuing it as a career.
The “Tech Chronicles” of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (6/5) also provided coverage of this story.

Massachusetts College Aims To Attract Women To Engineering

08 Sunday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

education, engineering, gender, women

I missed the email from ASEE that included this article. This is very interesting and something I may be able to incorporate into my research. From the ASEE aggregator last month:

WBUR-FM Boston (5/27) reports on line that while statistics show that men greatly outweigh in engineering programs, Olin College of Engineering, “a small school of fewer than 400 students in Needham, founded in 1997,” has “wanted to attract more women to engineering” from its start. The piece reports that Olin President Rick Miller “said the way engineering colleges teach engineering turns women and other students away who might otherwise be great engineers,” and reports that Miller said that he views engineering as “a performing art.”

Google Diversity Numbers: White, Asian Men Dominate Tech Jobs

03 Tuesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

diversity, engineering, gender, high tech, technology

I wonder why Google, as innovative and forward-thinking a company as it is, does not promote diversity in the workplace. I think the diversity is coming in through variations in personality and philosophy, because I love those Google-doodles and the creativity imbued in their image. But diversity could take them even further… Ah, well, another bastion, I suppose…  From the ASEE aggregator:
 
USA Today (5/30, Weise) reports on the low number of women and minorities among the Silicon Valley workforce, calling it “a funhouse mirror image of the American workforce, which is 47% female, 16% Hispanic, 12% black and 12% Asian, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Google released its diversity numbers this week. The numbers show that “1% of its tech staff are black,” 2% are Hispanic, and 34% are Asian, In addition, 83% “of Google’s tech workers internationally are male.” USA Today notes that experts say a reason for this may be that white and Asian men “are more likely to have access and take advantage of technical schooling that leads to jobs at tech firms than historically disadvantaged minorities.”
        The AP  (5/30) reports that Google head of personnel Laszlo Bock cited “a shortage of” female and minority students “majoring in computer science or other technical fields in college,” quoting him saying, “There is an absolute pipeline problem.” However, the AP reports that “the educational choices of some minorities don’t entirely account for the lack of diversity at technology companies,” noting that Google also employs thousands of workers in non-technical fields such as sales.
        The NPR  (5/30, Hu) “All Tech Considered” blog and the Christian Science Monitor  (5/30, Mendoza) run similar coverage.

White House Science Fair To Encourage Girls To Study STEM

20 Tuesday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

engineering, gender, girls, STEM

I hope there is some way attendance and academic interest is tracked to measure the success of a “specific focus on girls and women” in a science fair like this. From the ASEE aggregator:
 
USA Today (5/20, Jackson) reports that the Administration “is hoping its annual White House Science Fair will encourage more girls to take up science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education,” noting that the May 27 event “will also feature the usual assortment of robots, machines, and other science projects.” The article quotes a White House blog post saying, “With students from a broad range of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) competitions, this year’s Fair will include a specific focus on girls and women who are excelling in STEM and inspiring the next generation with their work.”

Navy Nuke Vet Seeks To Inspire Hispanic Students To Study Engineering

16 Friday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

collaboration, engineering, gender

Perhaps another collaborator as I work on diversity. Honestly, when we make the social changes necessary to support more women entering and staying in engineering, we are most likely to be successful if these changes increase accessibility to all: all genders, all cultures. From the ASEE aggregator:

ABC News (5/16) profiles former “US Navy Nuke” Barry Cordero, who “never heard of engineering as a child” when he was growing up “poor in the South Side of Chicago as the descendant of immigrants from both Mexico and Germany.” The article describes Cordero’s Navy service, noting that he “decided to pursue a bioengineering degree” after leaving the Navy, and in July 2013 “was named president of the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.” The piece quotes Cordero saying, “Engineering is still not that known in the Latino community. We have a very difficult problem with them achieving and becoming an engineer or scientist.”

Survey: New Graduates’ Expectations Don’t Reflect Job Market.

09 Friday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

careers, engineering, graduates

No, really? 🙂 Actually, I have noticed this but only with some graduates — and not Camosun’s! I think… From the ASEE aggregator:
CBS News (5/9) reports online that according to a new survey from Accenture, “college seniors who will graduate in the next few weeks have unrealistic expectations of the job market they are entering.” The piece reports that while over 41% of graduates from the previous two years are making less than $25,000 per year, only 18% of respondents expect to fall within that range. The article reports that the survey “also uncovered a disconnect in workplace training,” with some 80% of respondents saying they “believe they will receive formal on-the-job training, but only 48 percent of recent grads said they received any.”
← 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...