Engineering involves thinking. Innovation involves change. Innovators are critics; they think critically to stimulate change.
The spirit of seeing a solution of a problem to be ubiquitous in everyday life acts as a driver, an attracting pole, if you wish, pushing the innovator toward finding a solution for the problem that he or she sees. The question I’m trying to answer in this post is how well are engineers being educated to be critics, or, similarly, how well are engineer being educated to be innovators.
Innovators can not be called pessimists because of their continuous search for shortcomings in what they see. On the contrary, Petroski describes them as “supreme optimists, for they pursue innovation with the belief that they can improve the world, or at least the things of the world.” [1]
Educating future engineers to be innovators requires educating them to be risk takers, and, more importantly, critical thinkers. Someone may ask: does this also require, in some sense, equipping them with the spirit of entrepreneurship? It is not true that engineers should be businessmen whom ultimate goal is to turn ideas into money. The dilemma of whether the job of an engineer is to turn an idea into innovation or to turn an idea into money is an interesting one. This is because it depends on our understanding of whether innovation and money are two faces of the same coin or not. In a short, nice read book, published not too far ago by an aerospace engineer called Thomas Hanson, entitled Engineering Creativity, Hanson describes the ideal designer [2]. In addition to having a tough hide and a healthy ego, because creativity involves many more failures than successes, Hanson says that “truly driven, life-long inventors such as Edison, Steinmetz, and Kettering are much less easily understood, because their thinking tends to be unconventional, and their values and motivations are quite different from those of most people.” Talking about Edison, in particular, Hanson mentions that “based solely on the list of his inventions, Edison should have been the richest man in the world, but he was a very poor businessman. I suspect this was because money as such didn’t much interest him. To Edison, money was apparently just another tool.”
In so many ways, I believe teaching engineering is being similar to teaching art. I attended recently an art exhibition in which the displayed artifacts were works of students in an art class. The task assigned to the students was to first read the same poem (which described a generic painful case), then visit a cancer hospital, and finally reflect on what they have seen with connections to the poem by means of artistic artifacts. As an engineer in that exhibition, I understood that the poem served the same purpose of that of the Request for Proposal we give to our students in typical engineering design projects. The two teaching philosophies of the art class and an engineering class is almost similar: given a task, generate an outcome. The art students were not there in the exhibition to talk about their works, but rather the works were eloquently speaking for themselves.
I know that an exhibition is not the very right place where an engineer’s work should reside; engineers products are around us, and they speak by fulfilling the functions they should be fulfilling. Although being almost similar in the teaching philosophy, I believe that the element that was present in the art class and was absent in engineering classes is the challenge to think critically. In the art class, the students were challenged to see the hidden characters in the cases and stories that they saw, and then to expose them in reflective art.
I believe the reason for this shortcoming in engineering classes is the criteria by which the end product, compared to the art class, is being judged. Assessing engineering design in classroom settings continue to be a challenge, whereas for an art class, students’ works being in display in an exhibition is quite sufficient. Engineering creativity is different from artistic creativity. Hanson writes, “Creativity without objective judgment to guide its course rarely results in anything useful. One of the great obstacles to effective inventing is the very human tendency to fall in love with one’s invention, and for this reason designers must be careful not to let emotion and ego wrap their judgment.”
Brilliant engineering designers as Hanson describes them do not fall in love with their designs. I am not trying to say that art designers do fall in love with their work just because we tend to think of them being more emotional, but I really appreciate the approach of encouraging critical thinking in art schools. I wish to see one day engineers being taught to design in the same way artists are being taught to design; more specifically, to be reflective, critical thinkers. I wish engineering educators could rise up to this challenge of change.
Hanson describes the most brilliant and creative engineer with whom he worked with, who never attended college, saying, “I believe one of his major strengths was that his thinking had never been channeled into conventional grooves,” orderliness which is a result of traditional scientific and engineering education that inhibits creative thinking.
References:
[1] Petroski, Henry (1992). The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[2] Hanson, Thomas F. (1997). Engineering Creativity. Newhall, CA: T. F. Hanson.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Engineering in 2020 and Beyond
Reading a few chapters from the Engineering of 2020 reminded me of the week where we read many older reports on Engineering. One particular theme reemerged--the inclusion of social science, humanities, business, and other non-engineering courses in the engineering curriculum. Although it had been brought up before, one thing that was new was tying the need for more non-engineering classes in the curriculum to the changing global circumstances of our current times. Still this is an issue that has appeared more than once throughout the many reflexive moments in engineering's history. Furthermore, and I'm not sure if this is simply a limit of space and time they had to dedicate to the topic, or if this is covered in Educating the Engineer of 2020, but in the Engineer of 2020 it is simply suggested that the engineering curriculum should include more classes in social science, humanities, life sciences, and so on, to expand engineers boundaries of knowledge and ability. This line of thinking is like what Robin talked about during the week where we read all the reports (and I mentioned in an earlier post)--the debate over curriculum becomes a zero-sum game where people battle for including new things but other engineering educators want to retain their old content, leading to staggered or fragmented change. If the argument keeps centering around content and whose content gets included and whose gets truncated, it will be hard to effect more systematic change, which is something that may be discussed in the full book or Education the Engineering of 2020.
This brings me to another point. Its powerful to look the future and try discern what engineers should aspire to and what attributes the engineer of the future will have. However, aspirations engineers should have and attributes they should have are individual centered concerns. The topic above, the zero-sum battle of content cannot be fully addressed at this level. The environment in which engineers have these aspirations and may potentially gain these attributes needs to be considered. As Robin pointed out in her article we also read for this week, its important to look at engineering as a complex system--one that is composed of many interactive, interrelated parts--to take into account both the individual aspects of engineering (attributes, attitudes, beliefs, etc) and institutional or environmental aspects (educational institutions, professional societies, resources, etc). Reducing the complexity of this problem to things that need to change with engineers misses the important changes that must happen in larger institutions or social systems. Nevertheless how individuals think, act, and what skills and knowledge they have is also important; if just the university of examined, for instance, it will miss all the different types of students, learning styles, and experiences that go into the process of receiving an engineering education. Not only does a complex systems perspective take all of these into account, it is built on the assumptions that such systems are dynamic, adaptive, evolving and sometimes self-generating (so for instance we see a continued pattern of problems identified by engineers that continue to reappear--there are many questions as to why this happens, but from a complex systems perspective, we might infer that there is something about how the different elements of the system interact that result in these questions reemerging over and over again.) Problems of the size and scope we are dealing with (dramatic change in the ways engineers are taught and how institutions of learning are organized and run) need to be addressed at many levels and through many avenues, but they need to be addressed finally at a holistic level such as this to really make a case and push for major change.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Engineer's Role in Society
I know it's Thanksgiving but I just had to share my thoughts on an issue that is in the news right now; and discuss how it relates to the role that engineers play in society.
Many people are traveling by plane this holiday season. Recently, new screening devices have been put at some security checkpoints in the airports to allow TSA security personell to see everything - literally. I would assume that the decision to create this device was done in an attempt to improve security. It is reasonable to assume that an engineer was involved with the design/creation of this device at some point in the development process; and of course, promoting safety (in a variety of contexts and ways) is among the main roles that engineers occupy in our society. No, I am not against the idea behind this design, but the execution of it makes me a little nervous. Furthermore, there is an overwhelming response on behalf of the public that the device facilitates the violation of the passenger's privacy and hostility between the passenger and security personell (among other things).
Some could argue that while engineers did help to promote safety by creating this device, they simultaneously helped to violate the passengers they desired to protect. This paradox can be viewed as an ethical issue. Specifically, it has elemements of the utilitarian ethical perspective which suggests that some practices (though not ideal in and of themselves) are justified if the population as a whole benefits. Additionally, this scenario also reveals the complexity of the role in which engineers must occupy. Engineers have to satify multiple customers with one design and usually the satisfaction of one customer comes at the expense of another.
Thankfully, I am not traveling my plane this holiday season! Hopefully, an update to this design will be released by the time I am ready to fly.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Many people are traveling by plane this holiday season. Recently, new screening devices have been put at some security checkpoints in the airports to allow TSA security personell to see everything - literally. I would assume that the decision to create this device was done in an attempt to improve security. It is reasonable to assume that an engineer was involved with the design/creation of this device at some point in the development process; and of course, promoting safety (in a variety of contexts and ways) is among the main roles that engineers occupy in our society. No, I am not against the idea behind this design, but the execution of it makes me a little nervous. Furthermore, there is an overwhelming response on behalf of the public that the device facilitates the violation of the passenger's privacy and hostility between the passenger and security personell (among other things).
Some could argue that while engineers did help to promote safety by creating this device, they simultaneously helped to violate the passengers they desired to protect. This paradox can be viewed as an ethical issue. Specifically, it has elemements of the utilitarian ethical perspective which suggests that some practices (though not ideal in and of themselves) are justified if the population as a whole benefits. Additionally, this scenario also reveals the complexity of the role in which engineers must occupy. Engineers have to satify multiple customers with one design and usually the satisfaction of one customer comes at the expense of another.
Thankfully, I am not traveling my plane this holiday season! Hopefully, an update to this design will be released by the time I am ready to fly.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Post Engineering or Post Modern Engineering?
As I have been delving further into the experiences of women and people of color in engineering, the issues of cultural conflict hang heavy in the air for me. This made me start thinking about Mitchum’s article and his creation of a Post-Engineering. Post engineering makes me think of a type of nihilism. In modernity there was a sense of one correct way of being; a commitment to positivism; a commitment to growth, to progress. While I personally appreciate the fact that we are inhabit a Post-Modern world, I wonder if we do have to throw out the notion of engineering as well. To me this was part of the project of the post-modernist – to push the limits, to broaden our notions of ways of being, to accept that there might not be “one way” of being an engineer, but there might be multiple ways… We have not thrown out the need for professors, teachers, mothers, fathers, physicians, nurses, attorneys, accountants, but we are considering multiple ways of doing things. While this may not work out for the best, case example ENRON accounting, there are multiple, ethical ways of being that still exist within the boundaries. The boundaries just aren’t as firm. They are more elastic and filled with tension. Because ethics, values, ontologies, are shifting does not mean that engineering no longer exists – does it. Because leaders in academia and industry are calling for a more complex skill set, does that mean that an engineer no longer exists? Physicians and now Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistant’s don’t practice medicine as we did in the 1960’s, does that make them any less helpful or does it make them more effective? Like languages, I believe that for professions to be alive and vibrant they need to be shifting, evolving bringing forward effective practices, allowing for new practices and engaging in reflective behaviors. As Mitchum pointed out, academically speaking, engineering has been one of the most active in terms of reflecting of the educational experience of their undergraduates. Just because the demands of the field are shifting and allowing for multiple ways of being does not mean that we are no longer doing engineering… It just means that we might be going about it a little differently… I don’t believe we are in a post-engineering phase, but hopefully we are in a “post modern” engineering phase!
Lorie
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
President’s Forum Panel on the Future of the Public Research University
It occurred to me that there are some themes that this panel will cover that fit very well with the themes in our class, and that you all might not know that this panel was happening.....
Public research universities in the U.S. have long balanced access with excellence, and the synergy between the learning, discovery and engagement missions has created an intellectual environment that is distinct among university systems worldwide. Yet, the states have been gradually disinvesting from public higher education. This trend began decades before the recent recession, and there is no clear mandate from the taxpayer that this trend should slow down or reverse course. What then, does the future hold for public research universities? An extrapolation of the trends over the past three decades would suggest that the states will have almost entirely disinvested in 10-20 years. Some, such as Colorado and Oregon, are already on or past the precipice.
Is this trend reversible? Is the problem that the public research universities have not demonstrated their impact to the taxpayer, or is the impact evident, but judged by the taxpayer to be poorly aligned with the common good?
If the divestment trend continues, how will public research universities adjust? The current model of state appropriations funding the bulk of faculty and staff salaries will have to change. Fund raising from private sources will become increasingly important. Unless the endpoint is privatization, a new model will be needed for tuition in order to preserve access.
The Federal government seems poised to contract spending in R&D. Universities already derive a portion of research expenditures from their general funds. How will this be sustainable? Energy, healthcare and compliance costs are rising much faster than inflation.
The panelists will address the following questions from different perspectives:
1. How can public research universities make their case to the taxpayer? Economic development leading to growth of jobs in high-profit-margin industries? Preparing tomorrow’s leaders? Crossroads to the world? Synergies between research and learning?
2. As we approach a point where seeking greater efficiencies shows diminishing returns (e.g., mature campus with 95% first year retention, 90% 6-yr graduation rate, year-round facilities usage; optimal administrator/student and faculty/student ratio) how will public universities maintain access while raising tuition to counter decreasing state appropriations? Is there another source of revenue (national universities with federal support of the general fund? massive private foundation support for a small number of transformational institutions?)
3. Are there other models for state appropriations that better reflect the taxpayer’s perception of value? (vouchers for resident students instead of residency-based tuition?; division of the university into state-supported and private components – the Cornell model; tuition rebates or loan forgiveness for students who are employed within the state after graduation, etc.)
Introductory remarks: France Córdova, president (10 minutes)
Moderator: Rabindra Mukerjea, Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Assessment (introduces president; introduces panelists; manages clock; moderates Q&A; makes concluding remarks)
Panelists and Schedule:· Tim Sands, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (The Future of Public Research Universities in the US – 10 min) · Teresa Lubbers, Commissioner, Indiana Commission for Higher Education (The Evolving Role of Public Research Universities in the State of Indiana – 10 min)· Al Diaz, Executive Vice President for Business and Finance, Treasurer (Financial Trends and Possible Futures for Purdue University – 10 min)· Joan Fulton, Professor of Agricultural Economics and University Senate Chair (Senate perspective/economics perspective – statement?) · Brad Krites, Student Body President (student perspective – statement?)· Mark Lundstrom, Don and Carol Scifres Distinguished Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering (faculty/research perspective - statement?)· Q&A with audience (all panelists – 25-45 minutes)
President’s Forum Panel on the Future of the Public Research University
November 30th, 2010
9-10:30 AM, PMU Ballroom, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
November 30th, 2010
9-10:30 AM, PMU Ballroom, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Public research universities in the U.S. have long balanced access with excellence, and the synergy between the learning, discovery and engagement missions has created an intellectual environment that is distinct among university systems worldwide. Yet, the states have been gradually disinvesting from public higher education. This trend began decades before the recent recession, and there is no clear mandate from the taxpayer that this trend should slow down or reverse course. What then, does the future hold for public research universities? An extrapolation of the trends over the past three decades would suggest that the states will have almost entirely disinvested in 10-20 years. Some, such as Colorado and Oregon, are already on or past the precipice.
Is this trend reversible? Is the problem that the public research universities have not demonstrated their impact to the taxpayer, or is the impact evident, but judged by the taxpayer to be poorly aligned with the common good?
If the divestment trend continues, how will public research universities adjust? The current model of state appropriations funding the bulk of faculty and staff salaries will have to change. Fund raising from private sources will become increasingly important. Unless the endpoint is privatization, a new model will be needed for tuition in order to preserve access.
The Federal government seems poised to contract spending in R&D. Universities already derive a portion of research expenditures from their general funds. How will this be sustainable? Energy, healthcare and compliance costs are rising much faster than inflation.
The panelists will address the following questions from different perspectives:
1. How can public research universities make their case to the taxpayer? Economic development leading to growth of jobs in high-profit-margin industries? Preparing tomorrow’s leaders? Crossroads to the world? Synergies between research and learning?
2. As we approach a point where seeking greater efficiencies shows diminishing returns (e.g., mature campus with 95% first year retention, 90% 6-yr graduation rate, year-round facilities usage; optimal administrator/student and faculty/student ratio) how will public universities maintain access while raising tuition to counter decreasing state appropriations? Is there another source of revenue (national universities with federal support of the general fund? massive private foundation support for a small number of transformational institutions?)
3. Are there other models for state appropriations that better reflect the taxpayer’s perception of value? (vouchers for resident students instead of residency-based tuition?; division of the university into state-supported and private components – the Cornell model; tuition rebates or loan forgiveness for students who are employed within the state after graduation, etc.)
Panel Organization(tentative)
Introductory remarks: France Córdova, president (10 minutes)
Moderator: Rabindra Mukerjea, Executive Director of Strategic Planning and Assessment (introduces president; introduces panelists; manages clock; moderates Q&A; makes concluding remarks)
Panelists and Schedule:· Tim Sands, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (The Future of Public Research Universities in the US – 10 min) · Teresa Lubbers, Commissioner, Indiana Commission for Higher Education (The Evolving Role of Public Research Universities in the State of Indiana – 10 min)· Al Diaz, Executive Vice President for Business and Finance, Treasurer (Financial Trends and Possible Futures for Purdue University – 10 min)· Joan Fulton, Professor of Agricultural Economics and University Senate Chair (Senate perspective/economics perspective – statement?) · Brad Krites, Student Body President (student perspective – statement?)· Mark Lundstrom, Don and Carol Scifres Distinguished Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering (faculty/research perspective - statement?)· Q&A with audience (all panelists – 25-45 minutes)
Is engineering still relevant?
I read the Carl Mitcham article, "A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: from use and convenience to policy engagement" last week. I enjoyed the artcle as I was reading it, but was not prepared for the last paragraph. I never saw it coming. As an engineer, I never thought about whether my profession was still relevant, or whether it was still useful to society. I just assumed that it was. The question that Mitcham describes as obvious, "Why would such a liberal arts-based program....continue to be called engineering?" was not an obvious question to me.
This article made me take a step back and reflect about the future of engineering (as I suspect it was meant to do, and the reason it was chosen for us to read). After week's worth of reflection, I can say that I still believe that engineering is relevant and useful. I still believe that engineers have a place, in fact, a leadership role, in solving the technological problems of today and tomorrow. I can say that because I believe that the fundamental nature of engineering has not changed, nor will it. I would describe that fundamental nature as the manipulation of the natural world for society's benefit, according to society's values, limited to the resources at hand. All of the pieces of this nature will change over time - what does society consider beneficial, what does society value, what resources are available to use - but the combination of these pieces is still what constitutes the fundamental nature of engineering. Where I see Mitcham pushing is on the "what does society consider beneficial" piece. I believe he is arguing that our society values integration - that we as a society recognize that technology has moved to a central position in our society and as such, has as much power to harm as it does to benefit. He suggests that there should be "efforts to advance a deeper understanding of the nature of the Good" and that whatever comes from that should be valued and considered beneficial. And I believe that he is putting forth an arguement that engineers, being creators of technology, can't be objective about its potential. Where he sees a need for engineers to take a step back, I see a need for engineers to take a step forward. I see a need for engineers to have a better understanding of the bigger picture, just as strongly as I see a need for non-technical people to have a better understanding of technology and its power. I don't believe that only engineers can lead society through the solutions of its problems, but I also do not believe that society can solve its problems without some leadership from engineers and the technical and scientific communities. If engineers are to provide this leadership, they must be prepared to do so. And that's where the National Academy of Engineering's "Engineer of 2020" comes in - to prepare engineers properly for the roles they will play in the development of the solutions of the problems of the future.
This article made me take a step back and reflect about the future of engineering (as I suspect it was meant to do, and the reason it was chosen for us to read). After week's worth of reflection, I can say that I still believe that engineering is relevant and useful. I still believe that engineers have a place, in fact, a leadership role, in solving the technological problems of today and tomorrow. I can say that because I believe that the fundamental nature of engineering has not changed, nor will it. I would describe that fundamental nature as the manipulation of the natural world for society's benefit, according to society's values, limited to the resources at hand. All of the pieces of this nature will change over time - what does society consider beneficial, what does society value, what resources are available to use - but the combination of these pieces is still what constitutes the fundamental nature of engineering. Where I see Mitcham pushing is on the "what does society consider beneficial" piece. I believe he is arguing that our society values integration - that we as a society recognize that technology has moved to a central position in our society and as such, has as much power to harm as it does to benefit. He suggests that there should be "efforts to advance a deeper understanding of the nature of the Good" and that whatever comes from that should be valued and considered beneficial. And I believe that he is putting forth an arguement that engineers, being creators of technology, can't be objective about its potential. Where he sees a need for engineers to take a step back, I see a need for engineers to take a step forward. I see a need for engineers to have a better understanding of the bigger picture, just as strongly as I see a need for non-technical people to have a better understanding of technology and its power. I don't believe that only engineers can lead society through the solutions of its problems, but I also do not believe that society can solve its problems without some leadership from engineers and the technical and scientific communities. If engineers are to provide this leadership, they must be prepared to do so. And that's where the National Academy of Engineering's "Engineer of 2020" comes in - to prepare engineers properly for the roles they will play in the development of the solutions of the problems of the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)