Industry has been considered a major actor regarding the actions and changes needed to achieve sustainable development. Different approximations to the topic have been developed to face the challenges of having a more responsible production of goods and services. These approximations include cleaner production, green design, ecodesign, eco efficiency, design for sustainable behavior, sustainable design, and more recently concepts like circular economies among many more. In all these approaches, the attention has been mainly on the production side while consumption has been tackled indirectly. The majority of laws and ordinances that have motivated the emergence of these approaches have traditionally been oriented to producers. However, an European Union (EU) directive launched in October 2019, called “right to repair”, could change this paradigm, empowering consumers by giving them more possibilities of repairing their products instead of discarding them. This paper presents a preliminary discussion about the effects this directive might have on how we consume products now and how we will consume them in the future.

Teamwork has been systematically studied in engineering education as an educational method and a learning outcome. Based on the recent advances in socially-shared regulation as a framework for teamwork processes, this study explores the impact of the transition to online learning. The purpose of this study is to understand if face-to-face and online team dynamics differ concerning the prevalence of personal goals, team challenges, and individual/social strategies. The Adaptive Instrument for Regulation of Emotions (AIRE) Questionnaire was used to compare two semesters in project-based learning engineering courses that were face-to-face (2019) and then converted to an online modality (2020) due to the COVID-19 crisis. Our results show that both modalities report mostly the same prevalence of goals, challenges, and strategies. However, online students tend to manifest a significantly lower prevalence of specific challenges and strategies, suggesting that online teamwork may have involved less group deliberation. These results provide evidence for the "equivalency theory" between online and face-to-face learning in a context where all systemic levels transitioned to a digital modality. These findings raise the question of whether online teaching encourages the emergence of team conflict and deliberation needed for creative thinking.

Calls for democratising technology are pervasive in current technological discourse. Indeed, participating publics have been mobilised as a core normative aspiration in Science and Technology Studies (STS), driven by a critical examination of “expertise”. In a sense, democratic deliberation became the answer to the question of responsible technological governance, and science and technology communication. On the other hand, calls for technifying democracy are ever more pervasive in deliberative democracy’s discourse. Many new digital tools (“civic technologies”) are shaping democratic practice while navigating a complex political economy. Moreover, Natural Language Processing and AI are providing novel alternatives for systematising large-scale participation, automated moderation and setting up participation. In a sense, emerging digital technologies became the answer to the question of how to augment collective intelligence and reconnect deliberation to mass politics. In this paper, I explore the mutual shaping of (deliberative) democracy and technology (studies), highlighting that without careful consideration, both disciplines risk being reduced to superficial symbols in discourses inclined towards quick solutionism. This analysis highlights the current disconnect between Deliberative Democracy and STS, exploring the potential benefits of fostering closer links between the two fields. Drawing on STS insights, the paper argues that deliberative democracy could be enriched by a deeper engagement with the material aspects of democratic processes, the evolving nature of civic technologies through use, and a more critical approach to expertise. It also suggests that STS scholars would benefit from engaging more closely with democratic theory, which could enhance their analysis of public participation, bridge the gap between descriptive richness and normative relevance, and offer a more nuanced understanding of the inner functioning of political systems and politics in contemporary democracies.

The growth of undergraduate entrepreneurship education programs and research, both within and outside of business programs, has led to a diverse array of academic literature on this topic. The diversity of perspectives has led to many conceptual and educational challenges that remain unresolved within the literature. The following conceptual paper offers a critical perspective on challenges that have been identified. A narrative-style literature review was conducted to explore challenges emerging from both (a) the practice of teaching entrepreneurship and (b) the definitions and assessment of entrepreneurial mindsets and skills that result from those education processes in entrepreneurship education, particularly within an undergraduate engineering education context. We achieve this objective by discussing previously dispersed sources of literature from disciplines that have critically discussed and explored entrepreneurial themes, such as business education, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. Contemporary debates within multiple disciplines are integrated and organized as challenges to inspire new theoretical discussions among scholars, educators, and other practitioners that can inform a more comprehensive way to conceive and assess entrepreneurship in engineering education. Seven challenges were identified ranging from the definition of entrepreneurship in education to the role of ethics in the teaching and assessment of entrepreneurship. We use these seven challenges and research questions as a starting point for the disambiguation of the working definition of entrepreneurship in the context of engineering education.