ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION - Using the Fair Trade Learning Framework to Improve the Outcomes of Engagement Between Universities and off-Campus Partners

Oct 15, 2026

As global engineering education projects are launched, social outcomes and long-term impacts are often assumed to be positive without scrutiny. In sustainable development efforts, this assumption can mask an overemphasis on technical deliverables while neglecting how and with whom partnerships are formed. The article draws on community-based global learning, global development, and program evaluation, proposing adaptations to the Fair Trade Learning (FTL) framework for engineering education.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages31

Reading Time1 h 18 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Global sustainable development and assumed outcomes

Proposed framework and Fair Trade Learning (FTL)

Literature review and definitions

Fair Trade Learning framework and core principles

Case studies and analysis

| | Ad | vances in Engineering Edu | cation | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2022: VOLUME 10 ISSUE 1 Using the FairTrade Learning Framework to Improve the Outcomes of Engagement Between Universities and off-Campus Partners: Applications and Implications for Program Design NORA P. REYNOLDS Community-based Global Learning Collaborative and Haverford College Haverford, PA NORDICA A. MACCARTY Oregon State University Corvallis, OR KENDRA V. SHARP Oregon State University Corvallis, OR, USA ERIC HARTMAN Haverford College & Community-based Global Learning Collaborative Haverford, PA ABSTRACT As global engineering education projects and programs are initiated, too often social outcomesand long-term impacts are assumed to be positive. This is particularly true for sustainable development projects, which often have an inherent assumption of positive transformation through engineering solutions. We argue that a focus on technical deliverables absent prioritization of how and with whom our partnerships happen is less likely to actually lead to our desired social outcomesand longer-term impacts. We draw from the fields of community-based global learning, global development, and program evaluation to provide tools and insights for university-based engineering teams and off-campus partners to improve their long-term outcomes and impact. In particular, we draw on the fair-trade-learning (FTL) framework and core principles. We suggest adaptations to the FTL framework for engineering education, namely (i) broadening the definition of “community”to explicitly incorporate multiple types of off-campus partners, including for-profit enterprises; and (ii) more clearly distinguishing between outputs (e.g. deliverables), outcomes, and longer-term social impacts. Our analysis suggests integration of the FTL core principles of partner/community voice and direction and dual purposes increases the likelihood of achieving the desired social impact. Key words: Engagement, Global Programs, Social Impact 2022: VOLUME 10 ISSUE 1 1 ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION Using the Fair Trade Learning Framework to Improve the Outcomes of Engagement Between Universities and off-Campus Partners INTRODUCTION Increasing demand for internationalization in higher education and the growing inclusion of global learning outcomes in engineering curricula has led to a proliferation of real-world engineering education projects related to global sustainable development. Too often, as these global engineering education projects, partnerships, and programs are initiated, social outcomes and long-term impacts are simply assumed to be positive based on the intended benefits. Given the tormented history of development projects around the globe (Carr 2011; Easterly 2007), it is critically important to understand the impact of global engineering education for sustainable development (GEESD) projects and partnerships not only on student learning, which has received ample attention (e. g. Smith et al. 2016; Budny and Gradoville 2011; Budny 2016; Litchfield and Javernick-Will 2013; Borg and Zitomer 2008; Johnson 2009; Bielefeldt, Paterson, and Swan 2009), but also on off-campus global partners (including for-profit enterprises) and the communities they serve. We provide a framework for engineering faculty and practitioners to inform their own GEESD program design to work towards overall project success, sustained social outcomes, and positive long-term impact. Our framework draws on the research and principles of Fair Trade Learning (FTL), introduced in the community-based global learning (CBGL) field, to evaluate university-community partnerships (Hartman, Paris, and Blache-Cohen 2014) . FTL was designed to adapt to different partnership contexts and disciplines; it provides a framework to spark dialogue and raise critical questions that are often systematically ignored. By engaging these questions methodic

FAQs

Why does the article challenge common assumptions about social outcomes in global engineering education projects?

It argues that social outcomes and long-term impacts are frequently treated as automatically positive based on intended benefits, even when partnership processes and collaboration partners are not critically examined.

What fields does the article draw on to develop tools for improving long-term outcomes?

It draws from community-based global learning, global development, and program evaluation to inform university-based engineering teams and off-campus partners.

How does the article propose adapting the Fair Trade Learning (FTL) framework for engineering education?

It suggests broadening the definition of “community” to include multiple off-campus partner types (including for-profit enterprises) and more clearly distinguishing outputs, outcomes, and longer-term social impacts.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Nguyễn Văn Học