Engineering Education 5.0: A Policy Analysis of Accreditation in Ireland

Research Paper Recommended citation: O'Gorman, L., Leahy, M., Young, P., & Brown, M. (2025). Engineering Education 5.0: A Policy Analysis of Accreditation in Ireland. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631863. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. ENGINEERING EDUCATION 5.0: A POLICY ANALYSIS OF ACCREDITATION IN IRELAND L O’Gorman 1 Atlantic Technological University Sligo, Ireland ORCID: 0009-0005-5973-7511 M Leahy Dublin City University Dublin, Ireland ORCID: 0000-0002-8226-3626 P Young Dublin City University Dublin, Ireland ORCID: 0000-0002-0580-4345 M Brown Dublin City University Dublin, Ireland ORCID: 0000-0002-7927-6717 Conference Key Areas: Engineering education, Quality assurance and accreditation of engineering educational programmes Keywords: Professional Accreditation, Engineering Education 5.0, Industry 5.0, ABSTRACT This paper explores the extent to which engineering education in Ireland, as shaped by professional accreditation, prepares graduates for Industry 5.0. Using the authordeveloped Engineering Education 5.0 model as an analytical framework , the study examines how the seven core features of this model—technical competency, sustainability, ethics, collaboration, educational approach, global and cultural perspectives, and human-centricity—are reflected in the perspectives of accreditation board members, Engineers Ireland’s Accreditation Criteria (EIAC) (Engineers Ireland, 2021), and programme-level Self-Assessment Reports. Employing Ball’s (1993) policy analysis model, the research critically analyses the contexts of influence, text production, and practice of the EIAC. Findings show that 1 L O’Gorman louise.ogorm[email protected] while strong alignment exists in areas such as ethics, sustainability, and lifelong learning, significant gaps remain. Emerging technologies like AI, personalised learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and cultural competence are underdeveloped across both policy and practice. This misalignment between industry expectations and accreditation frameworks suggests a need for more agile, inclusive, and futurefocused approaches. The study contributes to engineering education research by proposing Engineering Education 5.0 as a lens for evaluating accreditation in the context of Industry 5.0. It calls for further research into how graduates experience the workforce post-accreditation and how accreditation bodies can evolve to foster adaptable, ethically grounded, and globally competent engineers for an increasingly complex professional landscape. 1 INTRODUCTION This paper presents findings from an exploratory case study conducted as part of a doctoral study in engineering education. The research critically examines the extent to which engineering education in Ireland, shaped by professional accreditation, prepares graduates to navigate the challenges and opportunities associated with Industry 5.0 (Breque et al., 2021), the latest conceptualisation of an industrial revolution emerging in response to the limitations of Industry 4.0. The paper is structured as follows: a concise literature review contextualising Industry 5.0 and professional accreditation; a description of the study’s methodology; an overview of the key findings; a discussion of the principal themes arising from the analysis; and a concluding section summarising the contributions of the study. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Industry 4.0, emerged in Germany at the Hannover Fair in 2011 (Culot et al., 2020). Known as the cyber-physical revolution (Majid et al., 2019), it integrates computation with physical processes (Lee, 2008), featuring connected devices, smart machines, and enhanced information exchange. This transformation streamlined manufacturing, boosting efficiency and organisational performance (Madsen & Berg, 2021). Key technologies in Industry 4.0 include the Industrial Internet of Things, Additive Manufacturing, Mixed Reality, AI, Digital Twins, Cobots, Autonomous Systems, and Big Data, which have collectively reduced costs in production, logistics, and quality management over the past decade (Nahavandi, 2019). Industry 4.0 brought both innovations and difficulties, particularly in social equity, sustainability, and digitalisation (Özdemir & Hekim, 2018). Key issues identified include technological dependency, job losses, and concerns over human rights, privacy, security, and environmental impact. Resistance to Industry 4.0 became evident among worker advocates and politicians who fear that rapid tech adoption may overshadow the need for improved employment conditions, worker welfare, consumer rights, and health (Choi et al., 2022). Environmental concerns are also significant, with criticisms that industrial activity increases pollution, disease, and resource contamination. (Sindhwani et al., 2022) argue that prioritising machines over people impedes Industry 4.0’s goals. Addressing the limitations of Industry 4.0, Industry 5.0 places greater emphasis on the human element as both beneficiary and decision-maker (Simion et al., 2021). Industry 5.0 retains Industry 4.0 technologies while expanding the role of industry in society (Broo et al., 2022; Leng et al., 2022; Skobelev & Borovik, 2017). Key factors driving the transition include the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs), customisation, trust, privacy, and data security (Enang et al., 2023), alongside sociocultural and environmental issues like an ageing population, energy efficiency, and climate change. Industry 5.0 represents a shift from the automation-focused principles of Industry 4.0 to a framework that integrates technological advancements with human-centric, ethical, and sustainable considerations. As industries evolve, engineering education must adapt accordingly. A model of Engineering Education 5.0 with seven features emerged as a response to Industry 5.0 advocating for the preparation of engineers who are not only technically competent but also ethically grounded, socially responsible, and capable of leading innovation in a world where technology and humanity must evolve together (O’Gorman et al., 2024). It redefines engineering education to meet the demands of a purpose-driven, sustainable, and human-centric industrial future as shown in Fig. 1. . Fig. 1: Features of Engineering Education 5.0 Accreditation is a key component of Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Enhancement (QE) in engineering education. In the broader European context, accreditation practices are shaped by the overarching Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) (EQNA, 2015). These standards promote a coherent approach to quality assurance across national systems by emphasising principles such as student-centred learning, programme design, and institutional autonomy. Furthermore, the EUR-ACE Framework Standards and Guidelines (EAFSG), developed by the European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education (ENAEE, 2021), provide Europe-wide benchmarks for assessing the learning outcomes of engineering programmes. These include both technical and transferable skills and serve as a reference for national agencies and professional bodies. In Ireland, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) oversees QA, develops statutory guidelines, validates programmes, and conducts institutional reviews (QQI, 2022). QQI also explores how professional bodies shape QA practices, as seen in its commissioned PARN report (PARN, 2017), which notes the alignment of national QA with European standards and the influence of global accords like the Washington Accord for engineers (IEA, 1989).Engineers Ireland, the regulatory authority for the profession under EU law (Kyne, 2021) plays a significant role in programme accreditation. QQI’s 2018 Insights report flagged issues such as outdated standards and accreditation costs. There is ongoing discourse about whether accreditation criteria sufficiently address evolving technological and societal demands. Some faculty argue that accreditation constrains innovation, adds to workloads, and limits pedagogical flexibility (Walker et al., 2011). Engineers Ireland’s strong influence on curriculum design has drawn both praise and criticism. Scholars suggest it overly prioritises technical expertise and lacks public engagement (Homan, 2020) To better serve society, it may need to broaden its focus to include interdisciplinary collaboration and civic responsibility. The organisation uses an outcomes-based education (OBE) model adapted from ABET (ABET, 1998) which allows curricular flexibility but has been critiqued for vague outcome definitions and limited student engagement (Gallery, 2021) Although Engineers Ireland consults stakeholders (Engineers Ireland, 2021), concerns remain about whether this flexibility supports diverse teaching approaches. In 2014, Engineers Ireland made enhancements to a Programme Outcome on ethics, (Engineers Ireland, 2014), yet implementation has been uneven (Martin, 2020). The broad criteria risk promoting a narrow, technocratic view of ethics, prompting calls for more nuanced frameworks (Homan, 2020). While accreditation frameworks such as ABET, EUR-ACE, and Engineers Ireland increasingly include references to ethics, there is limited consistency in how ethical competencies are conceptualised and operationalised across national contexts. Junaid et al. (2022), in their global comparative study of accreditation documentation from twelve countries, found that ethics is frequently addressed at lower cognitive levels for instance, "understand", "identify", and is often embedded implicitly through adjacent terms like "professional responsibility" or "societal impact". Their findings underscore the need for more structured and explicit approaches, such as those proposed in the Engineering Education 5.0 model, which conceptualises ethics not as a peripheral topic but as a core, assessable pillar of graduate formation aligned with Industry 5.0. Similarly, while sustainability featured in the 2014 criteria, the focus remained limited, especially concerning social dimensions (Nicolaou et al., 2018). Professional accreditation bodies play a crucial role in shaping engineering education by defining programme outcomes and ensuring that graduates possess the competencies required for professional practice. According to Chance et al. (2022), accreditation functions at the policy level to ensure that engineering graduates, regardless of location, possess a baseline of competencies. Through multi-jurisdictional accords like the Washington, Sydney, and Dublin Accords, accreditation aligns diverse educational systems and reinforces shared professional expectations. Engineers Ireland and similar bodies globally, like ABET and JABEE, play vital roles in aligning engineering education with societal and technological shifts (Downey et al., 2015). Balancing standardisation, flexibility, and stakeholder inclusion is essential to shaping an innovative, ethical, and socially responsive engineering education system. 3 METHODOLOGY A qualitative, interpretivist approach was adopted for this research using an exploratory case study as its methodology. The sample was purposive as Engineers Ireland is the only accreditation body in Ireland which oversees on the one hand, accreditation of engineering programmes in Ireland, as well as the development of new accreditation criteria. Engineers Ireland are also signatories to international agreements of mutual recognition. The case was bounded by the collection of qualitative data directly aligned with the unit of analysis and was therefore considered an appropriate approach. Specifically, this case study was timebound by data generated in the 2023 when the latest accreditation criteria (Engineers Ireland, 2021) were applied to a HEI that underwent accreditation for 22 engineering programmes. The case study was designed, conducted, and deployed in three phases conducted in consecutive order. Phase One encompassed a series of interviews with participants from with the accreditation board of Engineers Ireland. Members typically have prior experience participating in accreditation panels. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used for the selection of board members to ensure a diverse range of perspectives across roles, expertise, and experience. A gatekeeper sampling strategy was used, with Engineers Ireland facilitating initial contact with prospective participants. Engineers Ireland holds the details of each member of the accreditation board. On behalf of the reseacher, a representative of Engineers Ireland sent an email to the members of the accreditation board. To inform and encourage participation in research, the target group received a written outline of the research. The aim of the interviews was to establish the views and opinions, using thematic analysis, (Braun & Clarke, 2019) of participants concerning the updated accreditation criteria with the intention of identifying evidence of features of Engineering Education 5.0 (O’Gorman et al., 2024). Phase Two comprised a document analysis of the latest Engineers Ireland accreditation criteria (EIAC) (Engineers Ireland, 2021). It is a publicly available document and was purposively sourced from the Engineers Ireland website. The EIAC was selected as it provides the official framework against which engineering programmes are assessed via eight programme outcomes (POs) and seven programme areas (PAs). It therefore offers critical insight into how educational standards and professional competencies are defined in the context of accreditation. Phase Three involved analysis of the POs contained within self-assessment reports (SARs) from an Irish Higher Education Institute (HEI) undergoing accreditation, using the 2021 EIAC, in order to identify evidence of Engineering Education 5.0 present in the SARs. Engineering programmes must meet all eight POs outlined in the EIAC to achieve accreditation. This phase used convenience sampling to select the HEI, which was undergoing accreditation of its engineering programmes by Engineers Ireland during the timeframe bounded by the case. The HEI produced SARs for programmes applying for accreditation. As explicitly stated by Engineers Ireland, the most important section of the SAR is the PO section, which articulates how a programme has achieved the eight mandatory POs, thus, the POs of each SAR were selected as the data to collect and analyse. Therefore, the sampling strategy for the POs was also convenience as they were accessible to the researcher. Taken together, the three phases worked to provide the dataset for this research study. The study then employed Ball's (1993) policy analysis model as its analytical framework. which enabled a structured examination of the contexts of influence (interviews), text production (the EIAC), and practice (the SARs) surrounding the Engineers Ireland accredition criteria (EIAC) (Engineers Ireland, 2021) as implemented by engineering programme boards in Irish Higher Education Institutes (HEI). The framework facilitated an exploration of whether engineering graduates are being adequately prepared for Industry 5.0 (Fig. 2). Fig. 2: Framework of findings This research study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of Dublin City University and research ethics approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee based on a comprehensive research ethics submission in Spring 2023. 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As part of this study, the Engineering Education 5.0 model was developed to assess how effectively engineering education in Ireland, viewed through the lens of professional accreditation, prepares graduates for Industry 5.0. The findings highlight both notable strengths and critical gaps within the current accreditation framework in supporting graduate readiness for this evolving industrial context. In terms of strengths, findings in this study, particularly those from the EIAC and the SARs show that graduates develop a strong foundation in core engineering principles, including technical competency, sustainability, and human centricity which is revealed as ethical responsibility, teamwork, and lifelong learning. First, in alignment with Industry 5.0, where technical competency is framed as an integrated mastery of engineering knowledge and technical skills (Vogel et al., 2023), students were found to receive strong technical education, as demonstrated by competency-based outcomes. This is especially the case in the first four programme outcomes of the EIAC, which focus on technical competencies. Second, the explicit incorporation of sustainability as a core programme area in the EIAC (PA7) reflects the growing recognition that engineering education must equip graduates with the skills to lead the transition to a more sustainable and responsible industrial ecosystem and thus aligns with the sustainable pillar of Industry 5.0 (Breque et al., 2021; Byrne, 2023; Lantada, 2020). Third, a primary difference between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 is the emphasis placed on the role of humans in Industry 5.0 While Industry 4.0 focused on automation, digitalisation, and efficiency, Industry 5.0 reintroduces human-centricity, ensuring that technology serves people rather than replacing them (Breque et al., 2021). The study provides substantial evidence that human-centricity, a key tenet of Industry 5.0, is actively acknowledged in current accreditation frameworks. This is done through for instance, the integration of ethical considerations, teamwork, and lifelong learning. As previously outlined, ethics has a dedicated programme outcome, PO5, where it advocates for integrating social responsibility and sustainability into engineering education, thereby recognising the importance of human-centricity (Sangwan & Venugopal, 2022) as well as exploring strategies to ensure ethical responsibility in engineering education (Murphy et al., 2022). Additionally, teamwork, an important component of Engineering Education 5.0 (Mercier et al., 2023) is a key component of PO6, and this study highlights its critical role in engineering projects. PO6 also emphasises lifelong learning, which, within the accreditation criteria, underscores the importance of equipping graduates with the ability to independently direct their learning throughout their careers, a principle supported by Broo, Kaynak, and Sait (2022). Shortcomings in the existing accreditation criteria and their operationalisation were identified across all features and are mainly related to emerging technologies, sustainability, collaboration, personalisation and cultural approaches. First, there is a notable lack of attention to emerging technologies such as AI in technical competency. Moreover, there is a fragmented approach towards the integration of data science. Broo, Kaynak and Sait (2022) advocate that engineering education must shift from the traditional approach of rigid technical silos toward transdisciplinary and technology-integrated curricula through the utilisation of emerging technologies. They note that programmes often treat data science as an isolated competency rather than embedding it holistically across disciplines. Second, despite the recognition of sustainability in the EIAC, a systemic approach to its incorporation across programme outcomes has not been adopted, leading to piecemeal inclusion of sustainability issues. Arguably, this is as a result of the inclusion of sustainability as a PA in the EAIC. As it is not mandatory for programmes for provide evidence for PAs during the accreditation process, programmes may not include the necessary competencies for graduates to navigate complex, interconnected global challenges which are key issues associated with Industry 5.0 (Nahavandi, 2019). Third, the narrow approach to collaboration results in few structured opportunities for engineering students to engage in crossdisciplinary problem-solving initiatives or industry-partnered projects which is a core feature of engineering education in the era of Industry 5.0 (Broo et al., 2022). Fourth, there are also limited structured mechanisms to facilitate personalisation, inclusivity, or flexible learning pathways as advocated by Ghani (2022). Finally, while Irish engineering accreditation criteria align with global accords, thereby facilitating graduate mobility, little emphasis is placed on understanding different cultural perspectives or solving global problems by engagement with international projects as advocated by Engineering Education 5.0 (Cruz, 2021; Lantada, 2020; Van Maele et al., 2023; Vogel et al., 2023). This absence resonates with the resilience pillar of Industry 5.0 (Breque et al., 2021), which concerns future-proofing graduates, ensuring they have the skills and are prepared to address both anticipated and unforeseen global challenges.