IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/crtinf/v6y2025i2ne12040.html

A Systems Thinking Approach to Nuclear Pedagogy and Workforce Development

Author

Listed:
  • Brandon Costelloe‐Kuehn
  • Daniel A. González‐Rueda
  • Ina Kim
  • Emily Liu
  • James Olson

Abstract

Nuclear technology's controversial status has been shaped by its early use in military applications, fear driven by high‐profile accidents, and unresolved waste management challenges. There have, on the other hand, been periodic claims that a “nuclear renaissance” is imminent, driven by different dynamics at different times, most recently related to growing energy demands and increasing concern over carbon emissions. In this article, we respond to urgent calls for more nuclear engineers, resulting from the latest rallying cry around nuclear energy, by reframing the problem using a systems thinking approach that illuminates new pathways for nuclear workforce development via interdisciplinary pedagogies. By building nuclear education into a wide variety of disciplines, we argue, the nuclear workforce could become more resilient to ebbs and flows in energy markets and public opinion. Widening nuclear education beyond nuclear engineers could also reduce the isolation and compartmentalization that has limited the possibilities of nuclear technology. We show how growing and diversifying the overall nuclear workforce could create a wide variety of career opportunities outside STEM and enable greater specialization within STEM, since nuclear engineers and other specialists could be freed up to focus on technological and infrastructural innovations. We argue that interventions into nuclear education should establish new connections and applications of the nuclear sciences in diverse areas of expertise to develop a broad range of professionals who can contribute to a more stable nuclear workforce, bringing what we call “critical and creative nuclear energy literacies” to long‐standing and systemic challenges around nuclear energy. 核技术的争议性地位是由其早期在军事领域的使用、备受瞩目的事故引发的恐惧、以及未解决的废物管理挑战所决定的。另一方面, 间歇的断言认为, “核复兴”即将到来, 其驱动力来自不同时期的不同动态, 并且最近与不断增长的能源需求和对碳排放的日益关注有关。本文中, 我们响应了最近围绕核能的号召 (迫切需要更多核工程师), 通过使用系统思维方法重新定义问题, 该方法以跨学科教学法为核劳动力发展指明了新途径。我们论证, 通过将核教育纳入不同学科, 核劳动力能更有效地抵御能源市场和舆论的起伏。通过将核教育扩展到核工程师之外, 还能减少那些限制核技术可能性的孤立和隔阂。我们展示了如何通过增加和多样化核劳动力来创造STEM之外的各种职业机会, 而且令人惊讶的是, 这也使STEM内部的专业化程度更高, 因为核工程师和其他专家可以腾出时间专注于技术和基础设施创新。我们认为, 对核教育的干预应该帮助建立核科学在不同专业领域的新联系和应用, 以培养广泛的专业人员, 为更稳定的核劳动力作贡献, 将我们所谓的“关键和创造性的核能素养”带入核能领域长期存在的系统性挑战。 La controvertida situación de la tecnología nuclear se ha visto influenciada por su uso temprano en aplicaciones militares, el temor generado por accidentes de alto perfil y los desafíos no resueltos en la gestión de residuos. Por otro lado, se ha afirmado periódicamente la inminencia de un “renacimiento nuclear”, impulsado por diferentes dinámicas en distintos momentos, y más recientemente relacionado con la creciente demanda energética y la creciente preocupación por las emisiones de carbono. En este artículo, respondemos a la urgente demanda de más ingenieros nucleares, derivada del reciente clamor en torno a la energía nuclear, replanteando el problema mediante un enfoque de pensamiento sistémico que ilumina nuevas vías para el desarrollo de la fuerza laboral nuclear mediante pedagogías interdisciplinarias. Al integrar la educación nuclear en una amplia variedad de disciplinas, argumentamos que la fuerza laboral nuclear podría volverse más resiliente a las fluctuaciones de los mercados energéticos y la opinión pública. Ampliar la educación nuclear más allá de los ingenieros nucleares también podría reducir el aislamiento y la compartimentación que han limitado las posibilidades de la tecnología nuclear. Demostramos cómo el crecimiento y la diversificación de la fuerza laboral nuclear en general podrían generar una amplia variedad de oportunidades profesionales más allá de las áreas STEM y, sorprendentemente, también permitir una mayor especialización dentro de estas áreas, ya que los ingenieros nucleares y otros especialistas podrían tener más tiempo para centrarse en innovaciones tecnológicas y de infraestructura. Argumentamos que las intervenciones en la educación nuclear deberían establecer nuevas conexiones y aplicaciones de las ciencias nucleares en diversas áreas de especialización para desarrollar una amplia gama de profesionales que puedan contribuir a una fuerza laboral nuclear más estable, aportando lo que denominamos “alfabetización crítica y creativa en energía nuclear” a los desafíos sistémicos y de larga data en torno a la energía nuclear.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandon Costelloe‐Kuehn & Daniel A. González‐Rueda & Ina Kim & Emily Liu & James Olson, 2025. "A Systems Thinking Approach to Nuclear Pedagogy and Workforce Development," Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:crtinf:v:6:y:2025:i:2:n:e12040
    DOI: 10.1002/jci3.12040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/jci3.12040
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/jci3.12040?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.
    2. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    3. Weinberg, Alvin M. & Spiewak, Irving & Phung, Doan L. & Livingston, Robert S., 1985. "The second nuclear ERA: A nuclear renaissance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 661-680.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hafiz Ahmed, 2026. "Blockchain and Quantum Technologies for Securing the Global Nuclear Supply Chain: Synergies, Applications, Technical Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(11).
    3. Gülbanu Kaptan & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2018. "Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 996-1018, August.
    4. van de Graaff, Shashi, 2016. "Understanding the nuclear controversy: An application of cultural theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 50-59.
    5. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    7. Leurent, Martin & Jasserand, Frédéric & Locatelli, Giorgio & Palm, Jenny & Rämä, Miika & Trianni, Andrea, 2017. "Driving forces and obstacles to nuclear cogeneration in Europe: Lessons learnt from Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 138-150.
    8. Rehner, Robert & McCauley, Darren, 2016. "Security, justice and the energy crossroads: Assessing the implications of the nuclear phase-out in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 289-298.
    9. Hayashi, Reona & Kato, Ryutah & Watanabe, Rin & Kawaguchi, Hirofumi & Morikawa, So & Komatsuzaki, Shunsaku, 2026. "When economic incentives become repugnant: Moderating roles of construction probability and initial acceptance in high-level radioactive waste siting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 209(PB).
    10. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    11. Mari, Carlo, 2014. "Hedging electricity price volatility using nuclear power," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 615-621.
    12. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Latré, Edwin & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter, 2017. "Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 124-133.
    14. Csereklyei, Zsuzsanna, 2014. "Measuring the impact of nuclear accidents on energy policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 121-129.
    15. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    16. Yukiko Omata & Hajime Katayama & Toshi. H. Arimura, 2017. "Same concerns, same responses? A Bayesian quantile regression analysis of the determinants for supporting nuclear power generation in Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 581-608, July.
    17. Nam, Hoseok & Konishi, Satoshi & Nam, Ki-Woo, 2021. "Comparative analysis of decision making regarding nuclear policy after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Case study in Germany and Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Kyung-Shin Kim, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of Seoul National University Students in Nuclear Power under Opposing Government Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    20. Agnieszka Janik & Adam Ryszko & Marek Szafraniec, 2021. "Determinants of the EU Citizens’ Attitudes towards the European Energy Union Priorities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:crtinf:v:6:y:2025:i:2:n:e12040. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2693-3101 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.