I definitely agree that obtaining a four-digit code for Humanitarian Engineering would raise the profile of the field, but I question if some of these six-digit areas aren’t already covered by existing FOR codes. I also wanted raise that I think it is important that there is actually research (not just a focus on teaching) occurring in any six-digit codes we propose. I would second a lot of Tanja’s points if we were to advocate for a four-digit code. Another place where I feel we could take inspiration is 1204 Engineering Design (proposed to be renamed Design Research through Practice). A few suggested six-digit codes might be: (1) HE Methods; (2) HE Design, (3) HE Professional Practice, etc. The newly proposed 1609 Development Studies might also provide some inspiration as well. I often think about what sets us apart is the context in which we work. As Jeremy highlighted, we almost all draw from some other disciplinary knowledge. With this in mind, an alternative structure of six-digit codes might focus on the range of Humanitarian Engineering contexts (e.g. disaster management, global development, etc). Not sure how many we could actually come up with (?). Just another thought. I’ll be honest that I do not think there should be a “Humanitarian Engineering Education” six-digit code as none of the other four-digit engineering fields have a six-digit education code that is discipline-specific and I think this would better be grouped under a single engineering education code (either a new four-digit code or the currently proposed six-digit code).