Readings for November 11 - history of engineering education

The readings for this week trace a path of the history of engineering education from pre-1862 to 1918, 1933, 1955, and 1968 (later we’ll look at more recent reports). Each implicitly or explicitly says something about: (1) the aims of engineering education, (2) the process (curriculum, content, instruction, admissions, licensing, etc.), (3) who should be educated or gets to become an engineer, and (4) what is the nature of engineering (e.g., science, design, math, social, leadership, collaboration, etc.). For the reports, many of these arguments are based in an analysis of the current state (up until that time period) and/or stated recommendations for the future.

Each student will read only one of the following (the list of who reads what is below) – this is a jigsaw activity and is designed such that each YouTube team has explored in depth three of these readings. Each reading group is responsible for “teaching” the rest of the class the key points from that reading. As an FYI – for those of you interested in reading about what was going on in other countries – an overview is provided in the SPEE 1933 report.

With these ideas in mind – for your assigned reading and teaching guides - use your education philosophy lens (e.g., aims and process of education, who should be educated), your epistemology lens (e.g., what is engineering knowledge, knowing), and your boundaries/tensions lenses (e.g., tensions and boundary work, motivations for funding and writing the report, challenges they are wrestling with and ideas to resolve tensions). Note: NOT EVERY READING WILL ADDRESS EACH OF THESE. For the reports – take a few minutes to Google the authors and committee – many of these people are deans of colleges of engineering and / or presidents of what is currently ASEE (in the past, SPEE).


Lorie, Mariana, Cindy:
Reynolds, Terry S. (1992) “The Education of Engineers in America Before the Morrill Act of 1862,” History of Education Quarterly 32( Winter) pp. 459-82. Keep in mind: Like Bix and Slaton – this is historical research that makes a point about engineering education prior to the Morrill Act. What is Reynold’s argument about engineering education up until the Morrill Act (what argument is he challenging)? What does Reynold’s say about pre-Morrill Land Grant aims/process/who should be educated, what is engineering knowledge, and tensions/boundaries?

Ruth, Corey, Tatiana:
Mann, Charles Riborg. 1918. "A Study of Engineering Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. (Preface (227-230), Introduction (231-233), 231-275 (overview of current aims, process, epistemology).

Jeremi, Dan, Jeff:
Mann, Charles Riborg. 1918. "A Study of Engineering Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. (Preface (227-230), Introduction (231-233), 276-312 (tensions / problems),

Nichole, Hadi, Angela:
Mann, Charles Riborg. 1918. "A Study of Engineering Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. (Preface (227-230), Introduction (231-233), 314-340 (recommendations)

Natalie, Beth, Tamecia:
Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. (1930) "Report of the Investigation of Engineering Education 1923-1929."Pittsburgh, PA. pgs. 251-266 (assessment and recommendations))

Nikitha, Ben, Julia:
Collection 2004. "Journal of Engineering Education Round Table: Reflections on the Grinter Report." Journal of Engineering Education: 69-94. (Reprinted from Journal of Engineering Education, September, 1955 pp. 25-60)

Xingyu, Diana, Tosin:
Goals Committee. 1968. "Goals of Engineering Education: Final Report of the Goals Committee." American Society for Engineering Education, Washington DC. (Parts A, B, C – undergraduate education – 1-14)

The importance of Critical thinking in justifying enrollment of more women in engineering

Bix’s two articles talked about the gender issue in engineering. Also, I’ve read some articles doing research on how to enroll more female students in engineering. Usually in these articles, the authors mentioned the importance and necessity of enrolling more women with very limited discussion. I accepted the statistics stated in the introduction part of these articles that women were under-represented in scientific disciplines. But I never thought about the justification of the action of enrolling more women in engineering.

Yesterday I read a paper titled On enrolling more female students in science and engineering (Bouville, 2008). Bouville argued that the belief of enrolling more women in science and engineering was self-evident. He asked for a need to examine the justification of such belief carefully. The article listed several commonly proposed justifications in recruiting more female students: increasing needs of the economic development, higher salaries, the possibility to help others, the necessity and positive impact of diversity, and under-representation. Then Bouville used reasoning and illustration to argue that these statements did not justify the recruitment of more women in science and engineering. Bouville proposed there should be a mutual attraction between women and scientific fields. He further suggested we should give women freedom to choose study fields and allow them to graduate according to their abilities and desires, rather than try to draw as many of them to scientific disciplines as possible.

I agree with most of Bouville’s arguments. The article challenged the fundamental belief of the necessity of enrolling more female students in science and engineering. It reminds me of the importance of critical thinking in justifying a research topic. As the author described, I used to believe universities should encourage and enroll more women in engineering, because they were under-represented and because engineering needed diversity. I accepted such “facts” without carefully examining the justification of them. I did not realize that under-representation was merely a statistical result in itself but was not necessarily bad news. Therefore, we could suggest under-representation should be avoided only if such under-representation is caused by illegitimate action or manner. Meanwhile, even if engineering needed diversity, I don't think it was sufficient to say we should enroll more women because they have new ideas. Otherwise, people who had new ideas should be employed, such as foreign engineers. Moreover, I missed one critical point in my former belief: the attraction of engineering to women. We could not simply suggest to enroll more women in engineering without figuring out whether they really want to choose engineering as their study field.

However, I disagree with one of Bouville’s arguments. He argued that if we told girls that engineering was rewarding and encouraged them to pursue careers as engineers, we were tampering and manipulating them towards engineering. He believed the operation of outreach program (program that gives high school girls early exposure to hands-on experience of engineering) was to make the decision for young girls by choosing what information we wanted to present to them. I disagree with this viewpoint for I believe young girls have their own subjective initiative, which means they are the final decision makers of choosing certain field to study. Engineering outreach programs do provide opportunities for young girls to gain some knowledge and experiences of what engineering is about, and they do encourage young girls to pursue engineer career, but decisions are still left for young girls to make such as the attendance of outreach program and pursuance of engineering career. Also, I wonder how adolescents could generate their interest in certain field without prior experiences related to this field. In choosing certain discipline to study, adolescents would certainly be influenced by external factors such as prior experiences and guidance from parents. As long as outreach programs do not produce a biased image of engineering, I think they should not be blamed for encouraging young girls to engineering.

Reference: Bouville, M. (2008). On enrolling more female students in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 279-290.

Alice's MISs from Week 11 class

My offerings for the most important sentences from the 4 readings from this week's class:

Slaton 2001: 

 p. 51 -- “The materials experts, outlining requirements for success in their field, attached moral and cultural achievement to a set of personal features – namely, masculine gender and other “inherited” characteristics. With this kind of attachment one could formulate an image of good engineers as best derived from a “stock” of white males. If gender and ethnic origin can be seen to determine technical prowess, one then has a means of attaching technical ability, and all its associated social rewards, to that social “stock.”

or 

p. 60 -- “The presentation of character, religious practice, gender, race, and even voice and hair color as matters pertinent to technical operations fits with the subjective nature of technical work outlined within engineering coursework.

Slaton 2010

Ch 4 

p. 100 -- “It is exactly the nature of the “pool” that requires historical analysis if we are to understand the ongoing underrepresentation of African Americans in engineering. If a student arrived at the end of high school without having achieved visible and conventional measures of academic success, he or she was not invited into the world of higher engineering education. This was disproportionately the case with minority students who made up the majority at underfunded, inner-city high schools.... Thus, to mandate the admission of only qualified and not qualifiable students put the burden of integration on a part of the education system that patently was not doing its job.”

p. 101 -- “What would have happened if institutes of technology and universities, given enough support and sanctioning by employers of their engineering graduates, took over the task of remedial education? Schools could conceivably maintain sound material standards for engineering but train students over longer periods, with greater provisions for remedial instruction. Even if such instruction costs more than existing approaches, why have educators and policy makers historically not found it worth expending such resources to correct a social inequity?”

p. 133 -- "These familiar categories of analysis [connect to Bowker & Star!] helped to naturalize the idea that economic activity can connect apart from social considerations. To suggest that social matters can or should be introduced into economic decision making obscures the fact that economic priorities are born of social priorities.”

p. 134 -- "What did it mean for engineers to insist in this period that “technical” and “social” were two different epistemic categories?"

Bix 2002

p. 730 “These treatments embedded lessons in physics and engineering squarely inside culturally acceptable boundaries of women’s knowledge.”

Bix 2005

p. 123 “War even fostered appreciation of the potential talent of women in home economics, especially those majoring in domestic technology.”

p. 125, "Cadettes’ presence also led male engineering students to reevaluate assumptions linking technical education to masculinity."

Folks did a nice job picking these themes out (even through other sentences).  Thanks for putting them on the blog so we can remember them too.

Bix article:"Equipped for Life"

Our group (Tosin, Angela, Hadi, Corey, and myself) discussed Bix article "Equipped for Life: Gender Technical Training and Consumerism in Home Economics, 1920-1980". We agreed the main argument/summary is: Home economics in Iowa state helped pioneer the development of women's engineering education.

The tensions and boundary work noticeable in the article are:
the program's name "Home Economics"
what is perceived as appropriate for women
context
participation
academic environment vs home environment
engineering vs technician

Our MIS (pg.729): "They created an alternate vision of gendered knowledge, asserting a link between technical mastery and femininity – at least in the domain of the kitchen".

MIS for Amy Bix, Technical Education at Land-Grant institutions during WW2

Today in class our group (Xin, Jeff, Mariana and I) discussed the influence of WW2 on American Eng. Education. All of us came to agreement that WW2 had enormous impact not only on the development of engineering education, but probably on the whole American economy, higher Education, and research institutions as well. Bix stated that during WW2 engineering education came to the forefront. When the War begun, all engineering education became military orientated. Many universities (which before the War prepared civil engineers) provided on campuses accelerated engineering training for the Military. Usually, expenses for re-education and re-training of civilians to military engineers were covered by the U.S. government. Bix argued, that in 1940 the Congress passed the bill giving nine million dollars to establish new Engineering Defense Training (EDT) program, based in the U.S. Office of Education. EDT mission was “providing short intensive courses on the engineering college level in fields essential to national defense…” (p.109). In general, four month EDT courses prepared “a civil engineer to design airplane, or mechanical engineer became qualified for engine design” (p.110).
Also, Bix described a slow re-evaluation of gender roles in society (and as a result of that – in engineering education), which begun at the same time under the pressure of WW2. “Wartime programs carried an even greater significance in the way they affected women’s access to engineering training” (p.120). Before the War, unwritten rules discouraged women from attempting engineering education, because school traditions tied technical expertise to masculinity. Women who were enrolling in engineering majors were subjects for sarcastic jokes and controversial opinions from faculty and male classmates. During the WW2 the idea of “women studying technical subjects suddenly acquired patriotic value” (p.121). Because of growing manpower crisis, the U.S. Office of Education “wanted to draw women into war training from the beginning” (p.122). Women with degrees in home economics, especially who had curricula’s focus on technology, were very desirable for the engineering field. Bix stated that toward War’s end schools “started to worry about women taking up too much room on campus, as returning veterans tightened up housing” (p.127). In spite of the fact that most the girls who completed wartime engineering training did not make lifetime careers in those fields, “their experience left its mark on American colleges” (p.129). Bix concluded that in ten years after WW2, in spite of public skepticism, women enrolment in engineering programs was increased more than twice: “In 1949 there were 763 female students enrolled in engineering across the U.S.; by 1957, that total had more than doubled to peak at 1783.

My 'so what' of today

Although it's a short post, I want to share my 'so what' thoughts of the day. I am hoping that others will be able to share their ideas and expand on mine.

So what: Who decides what engineering is and how that affects who becomes an engineer. This also affects who is taught what in order to become an engineer vs. engineering technician vs. scientist vs. home economist/consumer. Shift from shop work to theory based engineering education (brought from France) change who became an engineer. Institutional bias in admissions based on qualified vs. qualifiable also excluded certain people from becoming engineers (i.e. not native born middleclass white males). Paradigm shifts may be caused by some event, for example, war. TENSIONS

Slaton Concrete notes

Slaton Concrete

Write an abstract/summary of this article. What is argument in 1 sentence?
- Historical perspective highlighting boundaries in engineering and engineering judgment (thinking aspect/workforce dynamics/hierarchy/innate characteristics) in the concrete industry from 1900-1930.

What are tensions and boundary work?
- Automated system vs. humanistic approach
- Tension in trying to keep engineers at top level (managers vs. laborer, white vs. blue collar)
- Hierarchical occupational vision
- Engineers purveyors of standards, but only certain people (native born middleclass white male) had the character to outline those standards
- Theory vs. cut-and-try method
- Science vs. engineering
- Gender and ethnicity
- Native born middleclass white male vs. everyone else

What would Alice say MIS is? Why?
- MIS pg. 51 “attach moral/cultural features…technical prowess…social rewards.”

MIS for Slaton's Race, Rigor, and Selectivity in U.S. Engineering

My group (Myself, Dan and Xin) summarized this article as looking at the history if IIT and UIC as a social project to uplift the inner city of Chicago. I hope Dan will add to this, since as he mentioned in class he lived through this "experiment". Because of his close encounter (as Alice pointed out in class) our group discussion focused very much on the social experience. More specifically, how the idea of placing the university in the inner city was meant to improve and "uplift" the ghetto, but what ended up happening was the ghetto was "bulldozed" and people from the ghetto were seen as a threat to the reputation of their program.

Our MIS(s) were on page 141: "Within the terms set by economic indicators, it made sense for engineering schools to turn away from the address of social problems and from any curricular programming that might a "cutting edge" reputation. As we have seen, remedial coursework or altered timeframes for Undergraduate degrees that might have led to greater minority inclusion in Chicago fell under this heading. If we cease to understand growth as the first or only cause of American economic decisions, we can begin to see that hierarchical society also justified these exclusionary priorities in research and teaching."

This excerpt illustrates the failure of the engineering program to bring about social change.

I will leave the invitation to Dan and Xin to add to this.

-Ruthie

Manifest and Latent Functions

The article about the Home Economics department represents an interests historical thread that seems to be left out in some categorization schemes for engineering. But something else struck me about the article. Some of the development of the Home Economics department at Iowa State happened at the same time the Seely article examined the move toward more mathematical and theoretical engineering. And if some has information contrary to my impression, please chime in, but it seems like the general practices of other engineering departments as they moved in the directions Seely wrote about and the practices of this Home Economics department differ in one really significant way. Throughout the Home Economics article the author talks about how students in the program are encouraged to use their knowledge to help family members, plan their own family future, answer questions and give information to women who are unsure about purchasing appliances or what appliances to buy, and in some cases graduates went on to take positions at magazines and continued this outreach to the lay public.

At the same, other engineering fields, those that were typically male dominated, where becoming more math based, and it would seem that there wasn't, or at least past work hasn't mentioned, a similar drive in these fields toward public outreach or trying to explain engineering principles for people male engineers know. Of course an engineer from one of these fields may discuss some of these ideas with people they know but the systematic outreach effort from the Home Economics department does not seem to have any equivalent in other engineering departments.

This is interesting, because a common stereotype for women vis-a-vis men is their "nurturing" and "relational" nature. Of course as a new department trying establish and legitimize itself, outreach is one method for improving the departments standing in the public eye. But for a field that was particularly catered to female students, it seems possibly more than coincidental that a systematic outreach effort of this kind was enacted by the department and instilled into the students who went through the program.

Women in Engineering comment, a little data to update Bix articles.

Factors Controlling the Number of Women Holding Engineering Faculty Positions

Introduction Growth in the number of women teaching engineering in US universities has been of high priority for several decades. The benefits of such growth have been discussed by others and there is no need to restate them here. The present study considered the factors that control the increase in the number of women faculty members. Engineering Doctorates Awarded to Women Essentially all engineering faculty have doctoral degrees. Thus, the supply of women who are candidates for academic positions is limited in part by the number of doctorates awarded to women. The number of doctoral degrees in engineering awarded to women since AY1984-85 is shown in the graph below along with the number of women holding academic positions. Both total numbers of doctoral degrees awarded to women and doctorates awarded to US citizens are shown. The number of potential candidates for faculty positions will be less than the former and greater than the latter. In general, the total number of doctorates annually awarded to women has increased substantially and almost linearly for two decades (an average increase of about 50 per year). The number of doctorates awarded to women who were US citizens has been essentially constant since AY1994-95. The number of women in each of the three faculty ranks has increased substantially since data began to be collected in Fall 2000. It is noteworthy that the number of assistant professors is greatest and the number of full professors is least. The growth in the number of women in the three academic ranks would appear to indicate that women have had increasing success in obtaining academic positions and also have been successful in being promoted to higher ranks. Further, the increases in numbers of doctorates since AY1984-85 would appear to indicate that this success will be maintained in the future. Total numbers of engineering doctorates and faculty are shown in the graph below for comparison to the data for women shown in the graph above. The data shown above exhibit trends unlike those for women. The total number of doctorates awarded annually from AY1998-99 through AY2002-03 was essentially constant. AY2003-04 data indicate that the significant growth in doctoral enrollments since Fall 1997 has begun to yield increasing numbers of doctoral graduates. Faculty numbers (all three ranks) have increased slightly since Fall 2000. In addition, the number of full professors is greatest and the number of assistant professors is least. It should be anticipated that the number of women holding associate and full professor positions will increase faster than those in assistant professor positions in the future, leading to a ranking of "full professor highest and assistant professor lowest" as shown for all engineering faculty. Relative Numbers of Women Awarded Doctorates and Holding Academic Positions The trends for women in terms of doctorates awarded and faculty positions become tempered when data relative to total numbers of doctorates and faculty are considered. The data presented in the graph below indicate that the relative number of doctorates awarded to women has been essentially constant since AY2001-02. However, these data show that a minimum in doctorates awarded to women reaches a minimum every five years. As is the case in many trend studies, next year will be critical. In terms of faculty positions, the relative growth of associate and full professors is more modest than would be inferred from the growth in total numbers of women in these positions. Most disturbing is the fact that little significant change has occurred in the relative number of assistant professors. Women Awarded Doctorates in Engineering Fields Making the Transition to Academia The transition from doctoral graduate study to an appointment as an assistant professor was investigated. The number of women who are assistant professors in a specific year were awarded doctorates over a previous span of years. This span was assumed to be approximately six years; data were obtained for five and seven years as well. The calculations yielded the fraction of women who were awarded doctorates that made the transition to an academic career, presumably as assistant professors. The results for each of the three years for which assistant professor data are available (Fall of 2001, 2002 and 2003) varied little; the data reported below are the averages for the three-year period. Using a six-year span of doctorate degrees prior to appointment as an assistant professor, 14.6% of the women awarded doctoral degrees became engineering faculty members. The fractions using five- and seven-year spans were 17.2% and 12.6%. The six-year span fraction will be used throughout the remainder of this report. It is noteworthy that the fraction of women awarded doctorates that obtain faculty positions (14.7%) is almost the same as that for all awardees of doctorates (12.5%). Thus, a higher fraction of women receiving doctorates is necessary for the relative number of women holding academic positions to increase. For AY2003-04, 1136 doctorates in engineering were awarded to women and 550 to women who were US citizens. Assuming that 14.6% will enter academia, these degrees should result in 166 women becoming assistant professors (80 if degrees awarded to US citizens are considered). The average annual increase since Fall 2001 in the total number of women holding faculty positions (all ranks) was 146. Thus, continued substantial growth in the number of women teaching in US engineering colleges should be expected. Summary The continued, substantial growth in the number of doctoral degrees awarded annually to women in engineering should continue to provide an expanding source of candidates for academic positions. It is important to note, though, that the number of doctorates awarded to women in engineering who are US citizens has been constant for about a decade and the fraction of women awarded doctorates has been essentially constant since AY2001-02. The number of women teaching in engineering colleges continues to increase over the period for which data are available (Fall 2001 through Fall 2003). On the other hand, data indicate that the fraction of women at the assistant professor rank has been essentially constant during this period. About 14.6% of women awarded doctorates currently embark upon careers in engineering education. If this number, only slightly higher than the fraction for all doctoral degree recipients (12.5%), remains constant, the growth of the relative number of women with academic appointments should continue to increase, but only very slowly.

Women in Engineering Education Webinar

Women in Engineering Education

I had the opportunity to participate in an IEEE webinar today discussing the ways that we can make engineering more accessible to women. Mary Ayre, Julie Mills, and Judy Gill presented ways to make engineering education more inclusive for women.

Here are some concerning facts (Ayre, Mills, & Gill, IEEE PowerPoint webinar, November 2, 2010)…

· According to the speakers, the number of women in engineering undergraduate students peaked around 2003 and is declining. Except for in Britain where it continues to grow, but their percentage of women engineering students is still below the declining average of many or the countries in the rest of western Europe and the US.

· Women make up only 11% of the engineering workforce in Australia

· Women engineers only stay in the engineering workforce an average of 5 to 10 years

On top of this I found an article that indicated that the “growth” of a society could be judged by how many engineers that the society has in comparison to the number of attorneys (Murphy, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1991). Murphy and colleagues (1991) postulate that perhaps some professions could be considered to be better for a society than others, and in their research, they found that engineers were “better” for society than lawyers and stockbrokers.

I believe that it is important that we encourage more people to become engineers, look at other opportunities to allow people to join the pipeline, and first and foremost take care of the people that have already made a commitment to engineering.

Here are some of the suggestions Ayre, Mills and Gill provided to create an engineering curriculum that appealed to a broader audience.

First, I loved their definition of curriculum: the sum total of all the factors in the classroom: the topics, the students, the teachers, the attitudes, the lenses.

There is evidence that many courses have a masculine gendered engineering curriculum focusing on cars, rockets, and weapons (King, 2008).

In their research, they have found that women and men as well have a strong interest in the social context and social value of technology. They encourage professors to discuss these issues when introducing topics.

Allow for flexible:

Teaching and Learning

Teaching Practices

Learning Environment

There are multiple ways of learning visual, auditory and kinesthetic is one conceptualization of learning styles, but Gardener certainly broadens the horizons with his version of multiple intelligences. Allow for opportunities for student to learn in their preferred manner. Ask yourself if there are ways that this assignment could be personalized and be both equal and different?

Become aware of your own Gender lenses

Assumptions about students

Aims and objectives, which are yours and which are the colleges

Assessment

Content

The authors discussed active learning strategies and a variety of methods to accommodate multiple learning styles.

And, depending upon your end goal of this program, the authors acknowledged that attracting, retaining and supporting women in engineering cannot be the sole responsibility of women engineering faculty. The institution needs to support the mission in ways other than giving faculty more to do!

The webinar will be on the IEEE website by early next week. There were some excellent strategies and resources provided. If you are interested in this area, I highly recommend taking a look.

References:

Ayre, M., Mills, J. & Gill, J. (2010). WIE webinar for IEEE 9 am on November 2, 2010.

Murphy, K., Shleifer, R., & Vishny, R. (1991). The allocation of talent: Implications for growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (2), 503-530.

Some thoughts

In the coming paper I am thinking of presenting the paradox of engineering creating society and society creating engineering. On the first day, I presented a picture of a bridge for my picture of how I saw engineering. This impact of how engineering affect society was what got me into engineering. How we, as engineers, impact the world. Refrigerators, chairs, tables, ect… effect people’s everyday life. But what I took away from this section was that the reverse is just as true. That society effects what it mean to do engineering.

Engineering has changed dramatically over time. It started off as military applications. There was a point in time that there were about 2 engineers per state, and this grew with specific major events. Major events that shifted the engineering definition was the Erie canal, the world wars and the cold war era.

During these transition engineering struggled with a what we are and what we out to be complex. Engineering ranged from application to theory and breath vs depth. Many argued each way during the transition and the argument that in this shift, engineering failed at producing either.

However, a place I am lacking is the tension space. These two things are paradoxes, but there is no tension between the two. Yes, engineering shapes society, and yes, society shapes engineering. I think everyone is okay with this concept. It was just a light bulb for me this semester. I had always focused on the engineering shaping society, and realized that being in this program has me shaping engineering.

This lack of tension is ok, but I just can’t build off of that from the first reading on paradox. That reading did strike me, I really liked the concept.

I see the paradox of engineering for application and engineering for theory as being a strong balance

Engineering as Hypothesis

In science, theories are constructed to predict whatever it is that science studies. As long as tests of a particular scientific hypothesis show that the conclusions of that hypothesis hold true, then the hypothesis reaches the status of the fact. In To Engineer is Human by Henry Petroski, he gives the example of the scientific hypothesis that "honeybees always build their hives with hexagonal cells." This became a fact since we have seen this over and over again. Until somebody comes to say that they saw bees making octagonal cells, that hypothesis of hexagonal cells will remain a fact.

Eloquently, Petroski carries this argument over to engineering. He says that engineering design in some sense is similar to scientific hypothesis in that the engineer's hypothesis is his or her assemblage of joints and metals, parts and components, ideas and concepts, to come up with a final artifact, that he or she claims its "truthfulness." But this time the testing procedure is different. If we are talking about a bridge, the "engineer's truthfulness" of the "bridge hypothesis" is only tested to hold true if it never collapses, and remains to carry traffic year after year without trouble. Below is a picture of the San Fransisco bridge 50th. anniversary (24 May 1987), where hundreds of thousands of people are celebrating this "amazing hypothesis!"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/parenting/detail?entry_id=71230

In this sense, engineers' universe is created by them, as opposed to the scientists' universe. In the process of engineering, the engineer takes on and off the hat of the artist and the analyst, creating the universe of possibilities that only he or she can dream of, and then checking for realities using sophisticated analytical tools. An example of that (and continuing on the bridge theme for civil engineering) is the beam.

"The essence of the idea of a beam," Petroski writes, "is that it spans some space and resists bending or deflection by forces acting transverse to its long dimension." We can see how the engineer's universe has been all of sudden created by this beam, spanning a dimensional space, and we can anticipate the kind of analysis that can follow afterwards.

Petroski gives more examples like the floor underneath us right now; this is an example of a "proven engineer's hypothesis," since the floor is not falling in the building where we are in right now!

Petroski concludes that we might see a faulty analysis that an engineer has undertaken. "That engineers make mistakes is forgivable; that they catch them is imperative." The fact that we have tremendous analytical powers in modern engineering may be good, but it's also misleading as to what engineering really is. Design, as an essential part of engineering, represents a giant leap in the human creativity, and sophisticated analysis should follow creative design, especially as designs become more complex with so many interactive parts. The challenge of educating today's engineers is striking the right balance between educating the indispensable attribute of creativity in design (if this is at all a correct statement) and the absolutely necessary ability of assessing design by accurate analysis.

"It is not easy to get a feel for a mammoth structure like a jumbo jet or a suspension bridge by flexing a paint stroke yardstick in one's hand. And the hypothesis that a structure will fly safely through wind and rain can be worth of millions of dollars and hundreds of lives," Petroski writes.