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.