There is a play by the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre called “Dirty hands”. It is a story about a veteran leader of the Communist party and a zealous young party member. At a crucial moment in the drama, the young man accuses his leader of betraying the party’s ideals. The older man answers this harsh accusation in the following words: “How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right stay pure! What good will it do…Well I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I’ve plunged them in filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you can govern innocently?”
Do you think we can engineer innocently? Or as Sheppard would question: How to engineer ethically when the objective risk of complex systems is given? (pg.137)
We all will agree it is important to integrate professional life with personal convictions in order to maintain moral integrity. In the course of practicing engineering, engineers solve problems. While the engineering decisions must be also guided by moral values, concern and respect for others, usually engineering decisions are generally guided by the project management variables of cost, schedule and quality. It is a challenge for the engineer in industry to find and ethical balance in the cost –schedule – quality competition.
How do you proceed when your boss is telling you: “These numbers aren’t going to work for us.” How do you engineer ethically when someone is suggesting you to add a higher number for the cable loss and telling you that we will have differences with the customer’s company in the testing equipment anyway? Do you feel extremely uncomfortable as this is not an internal data, but final results for a product? Do you tell your manager you could not proceed this way with integrity? Do you leave the company when suggested to proceed as instructed; after all, the numbers were very close to the required specs.
You truly understand that the outcome of any project is highly important for the company as that effect its reputation and revenue. On the other hand “…There are boundary conditions on making money and as a professional you don’t just do everything that you’re asked to do; you are not just a hired gun” ( Sheppard, pg.137). No, definitely you are not a hired gun, you only happen to have a small child to take care of, a visa status to deal with, a daily builds to pay, and so on. Then again, how do you engineer ethically?
With ethics, there frequently is no absolute right answer, just a personal best answer, and it all comes down to our choices and us. Then how we have been tough and how do we teach engineering ethics? In general students have a difficult time dealing with too much complexity. However, the real world is complex, dynamic, is not transparent, and this is true in the world of ethics as well as engineering. We can deal with complexity by exchanging ideas and creating models. However, the cases use as models in teaching engineering ethics are intended to reflect ethical problems that arise frequently in engineering under rather ordinary circumstances. Then, it is necessary that we understand the differences between models and real life.
In the 1920s, less than a third of the Engineering educators considered the study of differential equations to be necessary for an engineer’s education. In the engineering world of the future, a sound understanding of the theoretical and practical sides of engineering ethics will be as necessary to the proper education of engineers as a knowledge of differential equations is today, if not more so” (K.Stephan, 2001).
As of today, even that Criterion three of ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000 requires engineering programs to demonstrate that their graduates have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility the teaching of engineering ethics is still not a high priority in engineering education. Engineering ethics course is not mandatory and when offered through engineering schools is integrated through the curriculum in a variety of different forms.
As I have personally experienced unethical issues on the work place, I believe that the development of sensitivity how ethics work in the real world and how ethical problems can affect the entire professional careers of engineers is essential knowledge for students graduating Engineering Schools.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Book chapter from Sheppard et al, 2008; week 10
I would like to devote my comments to the book chapter of Sheppard et al, 2008, which I read with pleasure, and which we discussed today in class. The authors described many aspects related to engineering practice and engineering education, and I am going to touch some of them. The chapter begins from identifying what is engineering. A couple of “official” definitions of engineering practice were presented. One of them was made by the U.S. Department of Labor, and second one- by ABET. Department of Labor describes engineering as the application of the “theory and principles of science and mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical problems…the link between perceived social needs and commercial applications” p.3. ABET gives similar definition: “Engineering is a decision –making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective”p.3.
Then, authors divided engineering knowledge in three major categories: knowing that (declarative knowledge), knowing how (procedural knowledge) and knowing why (strategic knowledge). “The knowledge that engineers must bring to bear in their work includes knowing how to perform tasks, knowing facts, and knowing when and how to bring appropriate skills and facts to bear on a particular problem” p. 5.
Later, Sheppard et al. discussed the aims and components of engineering education:“although engineering schools aim to prepare students for the profession, they are heavily influenced by academic traditions that do not always support the professional needs” p.2. The authors stated that for at least a century, the U.S. engineering education was strongly influenced by the French model, when curriculum of science, technical subjects and humanities were taught before application.
Three major components of contemporary engineering education are:
•Learning about science (concepts & phenomena) , and accumulation of deep theoretical knowledge;
•Learning engineering concepts (e.g. problem solving, design, analysis), and accumulation of procedural knowledge with practical skills in lab environment,
•Learning ethical and humanity aspects.
The authors noticed that Ethical responsibilities became a feature of engineering recently. The focus on ethical consequences of engineering practice was not critical for the past. But in the present time, ethics and humanity issues can significantly influence on engineering decision-making. “Because engineers’ work directly affects the world, engineers must be able and willing to think about their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their interventions in an increasingly interlinked world environment” (p.8). But from the other side, talking about college level courses devoted to ethics, humanities, and social science, the author presented some kind of contradiction: too often students are forced to choose certain human science courses to satisfy curricula requirements. “The courses and their content remain largely disconnected from the technical education program, and it is largely up to the student to bring them together, if they brought together at all”. I liked the Figure 2.1, where the authors represented components of engineering education. Analysis, lab work, and design activities somehow intersect with each other; but the ethics component is opposite from other components. Ideal model for engineering education is presented on the Figure 21.1, “Networked Components Model”, where all parts/components are bind together and represent an entire model.
Then, authors divided engineering knowledge in three major categories: knowing that (declarative knowledge), knowing how (procedural knowledge) and knowing why (strategic knowledge). “The knowledge that engineers must bring to bear in their work includes knowing how to perform tasks, knowing facts, and knowing when and how to bring appropriate skills and facts to bear on a particular problem” p. 5.
Later, Sheppard et al. discussed the aims and components of engineering education:“although engineering schools aim to prepare students for the profession, they are heavily influenced by academic traditions that do not always support the professional needs” p.2. The authors stated that for at least a century, the U.S. engineering education was strongly influenced by the French model, when curriculum of science, technical subjects and humanities were taught before application.
Three major components of contemporary engineering education are:
•Learning about science (concepts & phenomena) , and accumulation of deep theoretical knowledge;
•Learning engineering concepts (e.g. problem solving, design, analysis), and accumulation of procedural knowledge with practical skills in lab environment,
•Learning ethical and humanity aspects.
The authors noticed that Ethical responsibilities became a feature of engineering recently. The focus on ethical consequences of engineering practice was not critical for the past. But in the present time, ethics and humanity issues can significantly influence on engineering decision-making. “Because engineers’ work directly affects the world, engineers must be able and willing to think about their ethical responsibility for the consequences of their interventions in an increasingly interlinked world environment” (p.8). But from the other side, talking about college level courses devoted to ethics, humanities, and social science, the author presented some kind of contradiction: too often students are forced to choose certain human science courses to satisfy curricula requirements. “The courses and their content remain largely disconnected from the technical education program, and it is largely up to the student to bring them together, if they brought together at all”. I liked the Figure 2.1, where the authors represented components of engineering education. Analysis, lab work, and design activities somehow intersect with each other; but the ethics component is opposite from other components. Ideal model for engineering education is presented on the Figure 21.1, “Networked Components Model”, where all parts/components are bind together and represent an entire model.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Types of Statements...
Among the many things that Latour, et. all, noticed while studying the laboratory environment was this obsession with inscription. There were a variety of papers everywhere: some papers the lab attendants brought with them into the lab; others they generated while in the lab – just papers, papers, papers! Later in the chapter 2, the author begins to analyze the content of some of these documents, and ends up with by categorizing the statements of the lab environment into 5 types. If being ranked; the lowest being Type 5 and the highest, Type 1. Type 5 statements are assumed knowledge (what you initially come into the lab with). Type 1 statements are conjectures (it’s what you’re asserting after you’ve done some scientific work in the lab). As was discussed briefly during in class today, the assumption is that somehow, in the process of performing the duties associated with being a member of the lab environment and/or being a SCIENTIST, your statements magically become transformed from a Type 5 into a Type 1 and now, are all-of-a-sudden yours statements are “worthy” of being put onto a piece of paper.
Two things dawned on me during this discussion during class (and some of my peers alluded to this as well):
(1) Are not Type 1 statements a kind of assumption/assumed knowledge as well – the only distinction is that now these assumptions are based on SCIENCE? So then, is there a real difference between Type 1 and Type 5 statements?
(2) Once your statements have gone through this “magical” transformation process and you now are deemed worthy to make Type 1 statements, what happens if you leave this specific lab environment and perhaps, go to another lab… By this circular process, don’t your hard-earned Type-1-statements automatically become assumed knowledge again?
Reference:
Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientic Facts. Princeton University Press. Chapter 2: An Anthropologist Visits the Laboratory, pp. 43-103
Two things dawned on me during this discussion during class (and some of my peers alluded to this as well):
(1) Are not Type 1 statements a kind of assumption/assumed knowledge as well – the only distinction is that now these assumptions are based on SCIENCE? So then, is there a real difference between Type 1 and Type 5 statements?
(2) Once your statements have gone through this “magical” transformation process and you now are deemed worthy to make Type 1 statements, what happens if you leave this specific lab environment and perhaps, go to another lab… By this circular process, don’t your hard-earned Type-1-statements automatically become assumed knowledge again?
Reference:
Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientic Facts. Princeton University Press. Chapter 2: An Anthropologist Visits the Laboratory, pp. 43-103
YouTube and Video Tool Links
I mentioned a FireFox add-on that allows people to download any YouTube video - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13990/
Also, I mentioned a codec package that has the Haali media splitter tool that will allow them to split the audio from video effortless and without rendering any video - http://www.filehippo.com/download_klite_mega_codec/
Hoppingtonly yours,
--SNL
Also, I mentioned a codec package that has the Haali media splitter tool that will allow them to split the audio from video effortless and without rendering any video - http://www.filehippo.com/download_klite_mega_codec/
Hoppingtonly yours,
--SNL
Engineering Artifacts
I try in this post to trace three engineered artifacts that are associated with the man-made transportation systems and that were developed over different periods of human history and in different places in the world. I organized this post so that:
- First, I describe each engineered artifact
- Then, I briefly describe the impact of that engineered artifact
- And finally, I give a description of the presence of this artifacts in the culture in or after which it existed
The three artifacts which I talk about here are:
- Petra, the city, in present Jordan
- The industrial revolution in the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th centuries
- Space exploration in the modern age, the 1950's and beyond
I talk about Petra, the city, in present Jordan, as an engineered artifact, just like any city is. The unique location of Petra allowed it to be the control point for many commercial routs passing through. Its impact on the life of the Nabataeans increased as they mastered controlling the water supply with dams and water conduits, which made the city be a natural oasis in the desert [1].
The treasury of Petra [2].
The Newdigate Prize in 1845 was awarded to John William Burgon's Poem Petra, who referred "to it as the inaccessible city which he had heard described but had never seen:" [1]
"It seems no work of Man's creative hand,
by labour wrought as wavering fancy planned;
But from the rock as if by magic grown,
eternal, silent, beautiful, alone!"[1]
Next, the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom in the 18th and 19th centuries produced so many artifacts that changed the landscape of the country, and therefore, the life of its people. It is no wonder how the development of automated machines have allowed access to rivers, canals, roads, and railways which did not exist before.
The impact of the industrial revolution changed the economy; jobs that were traditionally performed by laborers (including kids) were no longer needed [3]. The fact that machines have changed the way we live and move is still present in our daily lives nowadays.
The Iron Bridge, Schropshire, England [4].
Recently, and in the United States, I can talk about the transcontinental network of railroads and highways that required decades of commitments to complete, and the impact it had on the life in the United States in so many ways, but, instead, I would like to talk on space exploration as the new frontier. NASA's former administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin noted in a speech that:
"...the spirit of exploration is something embedded in our human DNA. In a certain sense, this must be true, or the human species would still be confined to East Africa, if it existed at all. And indeed, this genetic trait must lie even deeper than the human species; most members of the animal kingdom range as far and wide as their physical adaptability allows. So, while exploration beyond one’s known habitat is usually difficult and dangerous for an individual, it clearly provides survival value for the species as a whole, in the longer run. And, in the very long run, this may indeed be the single most compelling reason for space exploration."[5]
I will leave it up to you, the reader, to examine the impact and presence of the space exploration in our current days. Dr. Griffin in his speech indicated that, "Carl Sagan captured it nicely when, in his usual droll manner, he noted that if the dinosaurs had had a space program, they would not be extinct."[5]
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra [Accessed 28 October 2010]
[2] http://www.adventure-travel.org.uk/ASIA/petra.php [Accessed 28 October 2010]
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_in_Great_Britain_during_the_Industrial_Revolution [Accessed 28 October 2010]
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution [Accessed 28 October 2010]
[5] Griffin, Michael D. (2005) "Remarks for 56th International Astronautical Congress," Fukuoka, Japan.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Circles of Knowledge
In response to Rumsfeld's youtube video posted by George, I offer the above diagram. I first learned about this in high school from my sophomore English teacher, Mrs. Berry. She zealously drew this diagram on the board (sans the axes since they change for each person) and, to this day, describes it as mind-blowing. Perhaps instead of Koen’s conjecture that “to be human is to be an engineer” we should take on Bowker’s view and say “to be human is to categorize.”
Some thought on the classification of design
When I work on the essay of what is engineering, I use the word “design” to set a boundary for the discipline of engineering. Naturally, I have to think about the meaning of design, why it could separate engineering from other domains. Finally, I build my statement on the four-category of systems design intruduced in Figueiredo’s paper (Figueiredo, 2008): design as functional analysis, design as problem-solving, design as problem-setting, and design as emergent evolutionary learning.
In my understanding, the classification of design into four categories is related to the complexity of the problems that engineers are going to tackle. I begin to analyze the engineering problems that require different category of the design process according to the structure and complexity of the problem. I am confused by the categorization of the problems that require design as emergent evolutionary learning with the problems that require design as problem-setting. In Figueiredo’s paper, design as emergent evolutionary learning is involved in dealing with “ill-structured and complex” problems - the problems are unclear at the started point, the goals are implicit, while design as problem-setting is involved in considering less “ill-structured” problems – the goals and criteria of the problems are unstated but could be discovered or negotiated. In such description, I think there is no clear borderline between these two kinds of problems. As a result, I wonder whether there is a clear classification between design as emergent evolutionary learning and design as problem-setting. When engineers take into account both the problems and their solution to understand a temporary situation (design as emergent evolutionary learning process) and then proceed to another temporary state in the problem-solving process, their decision-making process could also be seen as a kind of discovery of the implicit goals and frame of the problems (design as problem-setting).
In Bowker and Star’s paper, they doubted that there exists a real-world classification system that meets all three requirements listed in their paper. If my interpretation of unclear classification of the four categories of design is right, then it could serve as an example of violating the requirement of “the categories are mutually exclusive”. I become more interested in the examination of existing categorization that I could think about, which will definitely help me understand the theory of classification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)