Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 31
Defining the Engineering
Community
The Changing Nature of Contemporary Engineering
Once the roles of engineers were fairly uniform and clearcut. On one
hand military and civil engineers performed marvels in taming the
continent and opening it up for development. On the other hand inven-
tors and early corporate engineers helped build U.S. industrial might,
providing materials and machines to make life easier and more pleasur-
able. From this era derive the romantic images of the engineer: the lone
surveyor in boots and Mackinaw, the wizard inventor in his workshop,
and the master of the industrial dynamo. These images embodied the
heroic concept of the engineer celebrated in American folklore until
very recently.
Throughout this century, however, the nature of engineering work
has been changing steadily. The corporate engineer has come to pre-
dominate, with work characterized by large project teams, relative
individual anonymity, and dedication to discrete bits of technology
advancement in a highly specialized field. Business itself has changed.
Modem corporations are generally much larger, more bureaucratic
than their earlier counterparts, and dominated by professional man-
agers, often with little technical background. The global sphere of oper-
ations of the modern corporation is another new factor {Report of the
Panel on Engineering Interactions with Society.) Rapid technological
change has also led to the greater diversification of engineering disci-
plines. Today there are numerous engineering specialties, each repre
31
OCR for page 32
32
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
sensed by a professional society and each composed of highly defined
subdisciplines that may eventually emerge as separate disciplines in
their own right. ~
Compounding the trend toward diversification has been the emer-
gence of entire new fields of engineering because of scientific break-
throughs or clusters of technological breakthroughs that offer the
potential for completely new products. Examples would certainly
include the invention of the transistor in 1948, which inaugurated the
field of solid state electronics. Some 10 years later, the development of
the integrated circuit in turn produced rapid expansion in computer
science and engineering.
Such developments have had an enormous effect on engineers, on
engineering schools, on engineering-intensive industries, and on the
way engineering work is done. For instance, not only have many engi-
neers become involved in the research, development, and design of
computers and computer systems, but a new toot has made possible
better designs in less time. This same advance has also given rise to a
new support person the computer specialist. By 1982 there were
more than 500,000 of these professionals {Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1983~. Today, the emergence of the very large scale integrated circuit is
about to create another revolution in the computer field as it sets the
stage for artificial intelligence and other potential "fifth-generation"
applications.
Another emerging field is that branch of bioengineering called bio-
chemical engineering {or sometimes biotechnology!. Built on scien-
tific breakthroughs in genetics and molecular biology, it might seem an
unlikely candidate as the basis for extensive engineering activity, but
the number of companies operating in this field has grown rapidly since
the late 1970s, and the number and usefulness of potential products are
seemingly endless {Office of Technology Assessment, 1984a) .
Some of these emerging technologies will profoundly alter the nature
and practice of engineering, particularly if several gain momentum at
the same time. Automation in manufacturing, including computer-
aided design and manufacturing, and computer-aided engineering, are
examples. Composite materials and artificial intelligence are progress-
ing rapidly and are undergoing intensive R&D. Yet the nature of tech-
nology development is such that technologies that initially appear
~ Some of the major currently recognized engineering disciplines are civil, mining,
mechanical, electrical and electronic, computer, chemical, aeronautical/aerospace,
manufacturing, industrial, petroleum, marine, agricultural, nuclear, bioengineering,
engineering mechanics, environmental, and ceramic, metallurgical, and materials.
OCR for page 33
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
33
promising sometimes do not come to fruition and are abandoned, while
others emerge unexpectedly. Ferroelectric technology is an example of
the former; random access disk memory is an example of the latter.
The impact of a new technology such as the computer is usually
pervasive throughout engineering. Not only does it change the way
engineering work is done in every discipline, but it can also change the
amount of engineering work available. For example, the full impact of
manufacturing automation cannot yet be predicted with confidence.
However, it is certain that it will affect engineers as well as craftwork-
ers Office of Technology Assessment, 1984b) .
In addition to new fields and specialties of engineering, there has also
been a diversification of engineering-style activity within the corporate
framework. For example, technologists {usually holders of a bachelor's
degree in engineering technology) and technicians {frequently holders
of associate degrees in engineering technology) today often perform
work that formerly required engineers; they are frequently qualified for
many specialized or routine engineering tasks, and this is therefore the
most efficient use of human resources.
Conversely, engineers are often found to be doing repetitive, routine
tasks rather than the creative tasks for which they are educated. The
reasons for this seemingly inefficient use of resources may include
regulations, automation, poor management, administrative necessity,
or even individual preference. In addition, engineers often work in
management, sales, and other support positions. The complexity of the
overall picture thus contributes to a prevailing confusion about what
engineering is and what an engineer does.
Another factor in the changing nature of engineering and this is
characteristic of many occupations today is that engineers enter and
leave the labor pool at different times and for different reasons. An
individual may enter the work force after graduation, leave it to return
to school for advanced study, then return to practice in a different
specialization; he or she may leave industry for a teaching position, or
vice versa, or may leave temporarily to raise a family. Major shifts in
demand for engineers in a certain field may bring large numbers back
into engineering from other occupations or, conversely, may cause
large numbers of practitioners to leave engineering entirely. Engineers
also leave the field for better opportunities, to pursue other interests, or
to retire. Foreign-bom engineers may be required by the conditions of
their visas to leave the country. This constant flux in the engineering
work force makes it more difficult to characterize accurately the engi-
neering profession, to determine with any certainty who is what, how
many engineers there are, and where they work.
OCR for page 34
34
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
Characterizing Engineering's Infrastructure
All these factors of change have caused a blurring of the concept of
engineering within our society. Yet a clear understanding of the profes-
sion is necessary as a basis for national policymaking, for fiscal and
economic planning, and in general for gaining a better understanding of
how the technology development process works crucial knowledge
in today's world. Consequently, the Panel on Infrastructure Diagram-
ming and Modeling undertook the task of developing information and
tools that could improve our understanding of the engineering profes-
sion in the contemporary context.
Objectives andAccomp~ishments
The panel asked of what components the engineering profession
consists and how it functions as a system. To that end the panel
formulated a set of definitions relating to the concepts "engineer" and
"engineering." In addition, it developed a set of flow diagrams that
provide, at varying levels of detail, a representational basis for under-
standing and quantifying the dynamics of the engineering system.
The committee believes that the results of this effort represent a
major contribution toward achieving those goals. They have withstood
sustained scrutiny and criticism on the part of the panel members, the
committee as a whole, and a range of interested outside observers.
Although the definitions and diagrams may need modification to
accord with the specific needs of future efforts in this direction, they
nevertheless provide a firm and rational base upon which future contri-
butions can be built.
After developing the representational flow diagrams, the pane! next
attempted to fill in the comprehensive diagram with data for different
years. In the process it found that the existing data bases, although
numerous and extensive, are inadequate for that purpose, for reasons
described later. Thus the panel was able to flesh out the diagram only
partially and with considerable uncertainty. Future efforts along these
lines will have to begin with the standardization and consolidation of
data bases relating to engineering personnel resources.
In addition to the foregoing, the panel conjectured that a computer
mode! could be developed that would represent the overall flow dia-
gram and thus make it more useful. Such an investigative tool could
provide a controlled "what if" capability for evaluating assumptions
within a low-cost study environment. However, an attempt to develop
a model sufficiently detailed and comprehensive to analyze the flows
OCR for page 35
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
35
described in the overall diagram would have required resources beyond
those available to the panel or the committee.2 Therefore, the panel
decided to develop an interim simulation model as an aid in analyzing
flows for the purposes of its study. The resulting model represents a
small subset of the overall diagram. It is limited in its capabilities, and
is not predictive with any degree of reliability. However, the panel
concluded on the basis of its experience that such models could be
useful for gaining insights and drawing broad conclusions about cause-
and-effect relationships.
The following sections describe in greater detail the activities and
findings associated with these development efforts.
Definitions
As a starting point, the panel saw the need to define engineering in
the broadest possible way so as to include all those activities that con-
stitute the engineering function. The panel then developed the concept
of an engineering community consisting not just of degreed engineers
but of all those involved in engineering work, support of engineering
work, or engineering education, whether they be engineers, scientists,
technologists, or technicians. This all-encompassing approach pro-
vides a "universe" that was deemed necessary for describing ade-
quately the complex dynamics seen within engineering practice today
anal anticipated for the future. The definitions follow:
· Engineering3. Business, government, academic, or individual
efforts in which knowledge of mathematical and/or naturals sciences
is employed in research, development, design, manufacturing, sys-
tems engineering, or technical operations with the objective of creating
and/or delivering systems, products, processes, and/-or services of a
technical nature and content intended for use.
2 The National Science Foundation is developing a model that will be capable of
serving that purpose in the long term {National Research Council, 1984. ~
3 The precise wording of the definition of engineering produced considerable contro-
versy within the panel and the committee. Debate focused on whether the phrase
"intended for use" was strong enough to convey the basic motivation or intention of
engineering. Many of the panel members felt strongly that the definition should convey
the notion of optimization or economy in the design and delivery of the engineering
product. Yet such qualifiers "however true or desirable) also seemed to make the defini-
tion more complex and diffuse-perhaps unnecessarily so, because the intention "for
use" could be construed to imply optimization directed at the needs of the user.
4 Including physical sciences.
OCR for page 36
36
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
· Engineering Community. People meeting at least one of the fol-
Towing conditions:
a. Actively engaged in engineering, as defined previously.
b. Actively engaged in engineering education.
c. Qualified as an engineer, engineering technologist, or engineer-
ing technician (see definitions below) and actively engaged in such
engineering support functions as engineering management or adminis-
tration, technical sales, or technical product purchasing.
d. Qualified as an engineer, engineering technologist, or engineer-
ing technician and was but is not now actively engaged in engineering,
engineering education, or engineering support.
An important point is that the definition of engineering as well as
the other definitions developed by the pane! is by no means an ideal-
ized one. It is not meant to prescribe or judge. It is designed to facilitate
the collection and analysis of data about the engineering community.
Other definitions {for example, those used by the Accreditation Board
for Engineering and Technology) are qualified so that they focus on
different aspects of the engineering function; those definitions are thus
appropriate for the particular purposes for which they were formulated.
The panel's next step was to define the members of the engineering
community. The definitions of engineer, engineering technologist, and
engineering technician were set forth in terms that were specific but
also inclusive, again so as not to place artificial restrictions on attempts
to model the real world of engineering. The occupational definitions
are:
lions:
· Engineer. A person having at least one of the following quaTifica
a. College/university B.S. or advanced degree in an accredited
. ~
eng~neermg program.
b. Membership in a recognized engineering society at a profes-
sional level.
c. Registered or licensed as an engineer by a governmental agency.
d. Current or recent employment in a job classification requiring
engineering work at a professional level.
· Engineering Technologist. A person having at least one of the fol-
lowing qualifications:
a. A bachelor's degree from an accredited program in engineering
technology.
b. Current or recent employment in engineering work, but not
qualified as an engineer as defined above.
OCR for page 37
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
37
· Engineenng Technician. A person having at least one of the follow-
ing qualifications:
a. A degree or certificate from a one-to-three-year accredited tech-
nical program.
b. Current or recent employment in engineering work, but not
qualified as an engineer as defined above and at a Tower job level than
that required of an engineering technologist.
While the occupational definitions differ little from those employed
in previous studies and reports, the notion of an engineering commu-
nity that is far broader than a mere community of engineers is a distinct
departure from most earlier approaches. The panel's initial examina-
tion of flows of personnel into and out of activities that are decidedly
engineering made it clear that individuals without formal education in
engineering would have to tee taken into account, as would all those not
currently engaged in engineering work but nevertheless qualified by
virtue of training or experience to become active as the need might
arise. In addition, technical personnel engaged in engineering support
functions would have to be included. To leave out any of these catego-
ries of people would, it was felt, greatly oversimplify the description of
the way that engineering work is performed and engineering needs are
met today.
Flow Diagrams
As described earlier, in order to provide a representational basis for
understanding and quantifying the dynamics of this complex system
defined as the engineering community, the pane! developed a series of
flow diagrams. The basic flow diagram {Figure 1) provides a simple
representation of the flows of people into engineering education and
employment, and their eventual exit from the engineering community.
The comprehensive flow diagram {Figure 2) is an expansion of the basic
diagram. It depicts all the significant sources, flows, and activities of
different elements of the community.
InFigure2, aggregate~poolsof people {defined es "stocks") areiden-
tified that make up the sources from the population at large, the various
modes of educational preparation for entry into the engineering com-
munity, categories and flows of people actively engaged in engineering-
related work, the technical reserve of potentially active participants,
and the various modes of permanent exit from engineering.
OCR for page 38
38
( Entry)~(
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
foreign
Entrant,
r ~
Cu rrentl y
Em pi oyed
Ponl
Deserve J
FIGURE 1 Basic flow diagram for the U. S. engineering community.
Ex it ~
Based on the comprehensive diagram, the panel next elaborated a
series of detailed flow diagrams, each of which focuses on one particu-
lar "stock" and tracks allflows into and out of that pool. At this level of
detail, it becomes practical to associate numbers of people with the
discrete pools and flows. A variety of existing data bases {see the next
section) were employed to quantify individual data elements within
each detailed diagram, thereby giving a series of one-year snapshots of
flows into and out of that particular pool. Figure 3 is 1 of 19 such
detailed diagrams; the example shown here depicts the flows of U.S.
secondary school students. The alphanumeric codes in parentheses are
data-element labels. Table 1 presents the corresponding numeric val-
ues for each data element in the diagram in three different years. Of
course, these illustrations are not easily interpreted without a fuller
explanation of their meaning. For more information, see the Report of
the Panel on Infrastructure Diagramming ant! Modeling.
Apart from the obvious value in having a graphic representation of a
complex system, the availability of these flow diagrams affords a num-
ber of important benefits:
OCR for page 39
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
39
· It reduces the ambiguity involved in dealing with technical
human resources by establishing a consistent, clearly defined set of
relationships among the groups involved.
· It provides a framework for use in quantifying the various pools
and flows.
· It permits the tracking of past events with respect to the engineer-
ing community and can be used as a basis or framework for forecasting
future problems.
· It provides a standardized mode! for studying the behavior of sub-
sets of the community.
As a case in point, developing the comprehensive flow diagram led to
the identification of two large populations not fully recognized previ-
ously a technical reserve pool and a staff support pool. These are
essential and integral elements of the engineering community; with-
out them the functioning of that community cannot thoroughly be
understood. In addition, the development effort revealed that the engi-
neering community has a greater complexity in structure and flows
than has generally been appreciated.
Data Bases
Fourteen or more data bases, considered significant, were used to
obtain data and estimates on the education and employment of groups
making up the engineering community. These data bases had been
compiled by a variety of national organizations and agencies concerned
with technical personnel.5 While an enormous amount of information
was available, a number of difficulties were encountered in using the
existing data bases to derive values for the flow diagrams.
One problem was a lack of compatibility among data bases because of
the diversity of purposes for which they had been compiled. Lack of
consistency In the definitions used by various compilers was also a
problem. Because of the differing needs of data base managers, there are
differences In the focus of data bases {for example, how scientists and
engineers are employed versus where they are employed!. As a result,
there are marked differences in measurement criteria from one data
5 The main data base sources were the Engineering Manpower Commission jEMC)
and the Bureau of the Census-primarily data collectors only-and the National Sci-
ence Foundation, the National Research Council, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and
the National Center for Education Statistics-all data collectors as well as interpreters.
OCR for page 40
40
I-2
st_t,8
1
Pa ~
l ~i .
l _ ~ .
r - ~
J ~ outs
Cal - ~
~ ~ ~ - ~
___ ~ ~ ~
arm Ma
|~] ~ _ ~ i r Chub 14
~ For '
'10~
~ I - ~t
. ~ ~11
- P 0 -
am am- DO ~ ~+
, ~
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
7
Blah
~ _
r ~ _
~ . ~
`. ~e
~ ~ , ~ 1,
t ~ _' l
i-. . 1
,~r ~ ~
. -
1
1
1
_ -r
_
-r
. _
. ~
rid -I ,
Ark ~
, I
FIGURE 2 Comprehensive flow diagram for the U.S. engineering community.
OCR for page 41
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
~*,
1
~2
fig
hate
P"
l
~ _
my,
T I T
D-1
"T - R
POOL
my,
1 ~
1
D4
D~ClU
PCOL
#
~e~a1.
Ink Fly
_ ~ .
_ .
~0 to
F-1 ~ 1
~1' r
Pa
~ ~ . ,
,~ :
. W
1
Lo .
I, ,
l rl
D-3 _
Oaf
ho
_ _
.~1-c,
~.~. 1
- i. l
Dim, ~ ~
1
1
_
. 1 .
-7
l
-
£-3
that
D - ~
Daunt!
~ -
B-2
Exalt
A t
_ J
tom m- DF =~
41
OCR for page 42
42
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
To Engineering
(A- 1 1 1 1 )
To Science/Math
(A-1 1 12)
Engineering
Students
(B-1 000)
Science/Math
Stude nts
( B -2000 )
-- 1
Non-Technical
Students
( B-4000 )
To Technology Technology
Students
( B-3000 )
Admitted
~ '1
(A-1 1 10)
U.S. Graduates
Secondary
Students (A- 1 1 00)
(A-1 1 00)
a)
4- _
O 0 Hi,
0 ~l: z
(A- 1 1 1 3)
To Non-Technical
-
(A-1 1 14)
To Below BS-Tech _
-
(A-1 1 1 5)
0
~1 -
Tn Rninw R.~-l\IT
(A-1 1 1 6 )
FIGURE 3 Flows of U. S. secondary students {A- 1 J .
Coil. Below BS
Students-Tech
( B-5000 )
Col I . Bel ow BS
Students-NT
( B-6000 )
TABLE 1 Numerical Data on Flows of U. S. Secondary Students
thousand
Label Description 196019701960
A-1000 U.S. Secondary Students 9,600.014,418.015,191.0
A-llOO Secondary School Graduates 1,864.02,896.03,063.0
A-lllO Admitted to College 929.82,080.22,625.1
A-llll To Engineering 67.671.7110.1
A-1112 Science/Mathb 92.3134.9143.7
A-1113 Technology 4.811.0
A- 1114 Nontechnical 4 years plus 460. 1801.6944.6
A-1115 Collegiate Below BS-T 20.260.0150.7
A-1 1 16 Collegiate Below BS-NT 718.8363.5748.3
A-1 120 Noncollege
A-1130 Nondegree College
A-1200 High School Dropouts 998.0929.01,099.0
a Includes foreign students
b Science/Math includes: agricultural/natural resources, biology, computer science,
math, physical sciences, general science programs
OCR for page 43
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
43
base to another. There are also differences in choice of respondent j for
example, individuals or households or establishments) and in the fre-
quency of updating (varying from 1 month to 10 years). These differ-
ences result in significant discrepancies in personnel estimates.
Shortcomings of the individual data bases from the standpoint of the
flow diagrams presented another problem. Overall, for example, the
data bases fait to provide current information on nondegree or associ-
ate-degree engineers and computer specialists. A significant number of
engineers are not degree holders or are upgrades; lack of such informa-
tion is particularly important with regard to technicians, few of whom
hold a B.S. degree. Coverage of gender, racial and ethnic background,
citizenship, and income is uneven across the various data bases. There
are limited data on the flows of students between engineering and other
courses of study or across engineering disciplines. Additionally, the
data bases often fail to distinguish among master's and doctoral stu-
dents or to specify their disciplines. Data on the mobility of students
between two- and four-year colleges are also lacking. These shortcom-
ings are at least partly a function of the prevailing narrow definition of
the engineering community. While they could be compensated for to
some extent, the net impact on the flow diagrams developed by the
panel is that data elements tend to underestimate the size of stocks and
flows.
The unavailability of comprehensive, compatible data bases is made
more disturbing by the fact that important data are not being used. An
example is the Higher Education General Information Survey data,
which are collected and filed by each state but not subjected to subse-
quent analysis until copies of the raw data are received by the National
Center for Education Statistics. These data could be put to more imme-
diate and fruitful use at minimal cost to the federal government if they
were digitized at the state level {perhaps with federal funding).
In short, currently available data bases provide only a limited under-
standing of the engineering community. Existing data were inadequate
for making historical comparisons or for constructing consistent por-
traits of the engineering community, past or present.
To rectify this serious problem, the committee recommends that the
National Academy of Engineering take the initiative to call together
the various public and private data-collecting organizations to see how
best to arrive at common definitions, survey methodologies, and dia-
gramming methodologies. The purpose of this coordination will be to
ensure to the greatest degree possible that data collection efforts result
in accurate and compatible data bases that describe the engineering
community and its various components in totality.
OCR for page 44
44
The Engineering Personnel Mode]
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
As described earlier, the Pane! on Infrastructure Diagramming and
Modeling developed and tested a simple computer-based mode! of the
dynamics characterizing the engineering community. The mode}
developed by the panel is neither econometric nor predictive, that is, it
cannot take into account the impact of such external and unpredictable
factors as a change in defense spending or a recession. The model
merely provides a snapshot of a selected Towpath in which a change in a
parameter at one end of the path produces a corresponding change in a
parameter at the other end.
A very restricted set of objectives was chosen for the model. Using
the tenets of the comprehensive flow diagram, the Towpath selected
was that for population to education to job market {Figure 4J. The
mode} was limited to a relatively high summary level, and only people
with degrees in engineering, physical science, mathematics, and com-
puter science were included. Finally, the model was run in an open loop
mode to permit easier interaction and mode! formulation.
The resulting mode! can simulate the flow of engineers in the United
States beginning in 1950. It is also possible to run alternative cases,
thus affording a relatively crude form of forecast, but because of the
restrictions set, the model cannot offer projections at a high level of
confidence. {Thirty-year projections based on the statistics of 1950, for
example, give results that deviate from the actual by as much as two to
one. ~ Indeed, the panel concluded that the rate and unpredictability of
change in technology and in the economic, political, and social spheres
precludes the development of any reliable predictive model. However,
such a model can offer constructive guidance for future causal studies
and for the development of new educational policies 6
For a further discussion of modeling and its potential, see the Report
of the Pane! on Infrastructure Diagramming and Modeling.
The Support Structure for Engineering
Along with characterizing of the engineering community, it is impor-
tant to understand the organizational context within and through
which that community functions. Accordingly, the pane! on support
6 Detailed data on the model and its structure and example runs are available on
request from the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel of the National
Research Council.
OCR for page 45
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
Hi:
POPS LATI ON
High School
Graduates
~ ,
_
First Year
College
Enrol I ment
1
I _ 1
r
Engineering
Degrees ~-
(Bachelors)
Engineering
Degrees
(Masters)
Engineering
Degrees
(Doctors)
Total Degrees
Awarded
En rol I ment
1t
ENGI NE ER I NG
WORK FORCE
_ t
EXIT ~
FIGURE 4 Engineering personnel model diagram.
45
-- 1
Othe
Degrees
(Bachelors) l
l
Other
Degrees
(Masters)
.
l
Other
Degrees
( Doctors )
OCR for page 46
46
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
organizations undertook to identify the types of supporting organiza-
tions and the needs they serve with respect to various sectors of the
engineering community. These sectors include engineering academic
institutions, government, industry, and private practice. In addition,
the needs of society at large were considered in terms of its ability to
affect the engineering profession in both positive and adverse ways.
The panel identified a wide variety of needs that exist in each of
the four sectors of the engineering community and which must be met
by specific types of support organizations. One finding was that com-
mon support needs exist across the four sectors. There are common
needs for:
· Maintaining technical competence through continuing education.
· Information exchange and ready access to essential information.
· Continued professional development, defined in terms of the pro-
fession as a whole and in terms of individual development.
· Professional standards and ethics, involving on the one hand
assurance that engineering is functioning responsibly and on the other
a greater understanding by society of the effort of the engineering com-
munity to be responsive to its needs.
A great many organizations serve these and other needs of engineers,
including, very prominently, the employing organizations and society
itself {through government agencies, legislatures, and schools). Engi-
neering educational institutions serve the needs of all sectors, not only
through their primary mission of providing degree-oriented instruction
but also in offering continuing educational opportunities, conducting
research, and facilitating information exchange on many levels.
The pane! also took special note of the role played by engineering
associations and societies in support of engineers and engineering.
There are over 50 such societies and associations {and more than 400 if-
state and local organizations are counted). They fall into five major
groups:
· Those focused primarily on established or emerging engineering
disciplines, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers and the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
· Those focused on practice in a broad occupational field, such as the
Society of Automotive Engineers, the American Institute of Aeronau-
tics end astronautics, and the American Society for Engineering Educa
tion.
OCR for page 47
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
47
· Those focused on a specific technology or group of technologies,
such as the American Nuclear Society, the American Society of Safety
Engineers, and the Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
· Those formed to promote and serve the professional and nontech-
nical interests of their members, such as the National Society of Profes-
sional Engineers, the Society of Black Engineers, the Society of
Hispanic Engineers, and the Society of Women Engineers.
· Those societies formed by consortia of other societies to accom-
plish different and sometimes complementary profession-wide mis-
sions. Examples of these are the American Association of Engineering
Societies, the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering,
and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. Stan-
darcis-setting organizations such as the American National Standards
Institute and the American Society for Testing and Materials are also in
this category.
These voluntary organizations provide an extremely wide and varied
range of support functions, including publishing technical information
and general professional news, presenting seminars and symposia,
offering guidance and scholarships to students, representing the inter-
ests of engineering in public policy forums, and providing public infor-
mation about engineers and engineering achievements. A very
valuable area of activity is the setting of standards, including technical
standards, professional standards of conduct, and engineering educa-
tional standards.
The technical/professional societies have generally been very effec-
tive in meeting the needs of the engineering community in particular
those of their members. However, there is a concern that too small a
proportion of the engineering community actually supports these
efforts. Taking into account overlapping memberships, the panel made
a rough estimate that perhaps only about one-third of the total engi-
neering work force actually belongs to one or more societies, although
many more enjoy occasional or indirect benefits from the diverse sup-
port services that these societies provide.
The committee believes that it would benefit the engineering com-
munity if a greater fraction of engineers were members of the engineer-
ing technical and professional societies. Therefore steps should be
taken to enhance the attractiveness of membership.
Toward this end the committee recommends that the activities of
professional societies be explained more fully to students during the
undergraduate years. In addition, industry and government agencies
OCR for page 48
48
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
should encourage engineering employees to participate in the activities
of the societies and should provide support for that participation.
Greater industry support should come as a result of more aggressive
efforts on the part of professional societies to make industry manage-
ment aware of the many benefits provided by the societies to industry
management as well as to the individual engineer.
One area in which the technical/professional societies have had only
limited success notwithstanding much effort over the years-is in
communicating the nature and value of the engineering endeavor to
society at large. Many of the problems that engineers must face career
dislocation through sudden shifts in demand, problems of professional
image and ethics, proliferating regulatory legislation, and inadequate
funding for engineering education, for example are related to a poor
comprehension {and even apprehension) on the part of the general
public about the engineering community and its works.
The engineering community to some extent has contributed to this
isolation of itself from the public by an attitude of elitism and by a
reluctance to discuss often-controversial and complex {as well as pro-
prietary} technical matters with the media. Often, too, engineers mis-
trust the motives of reporters. Yet these attitudes, however
understandable, are self-defeating. Today, the public's perception of
technology has become a major factor affecting the country's decision-
making processes. Public attitudes toward engineering in general have
become more positive in recent years, but there is no guarantee of
permanency in this trend.
Since the general public depends on the mass media for most of its
information, any effort to improve public understanding of engineering
must focus on improving media coverage. The engineering community
must actively help the media in this regard. Mechanisms for improving
media coverage are for the most part already in place, and need only be
strengthened and expanded. The various support organizations engi-
neering professional societies, government agencies, and engineering
schools and corporations can broaden their existing public informa-
tion programs vis-a-vis the public and the media. In addition, existing
science and technology media services can be used more fully to pro-
vide an effective interface between engineers and the media. Organiza-
tions of the latter type exist {for example, the Media Resource Service of
the Scientists' Institute for Public Information, in New York City), but
are not universally used.
The committee recommends that the National Academy of Engi-
neer~g take the initiative to create a media institute that would pro-
vide centralized coordination of a nationwide network of technological
OCR for page 49
DEFINING THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
49
information sources. This institute would explicitly not be a public
relations organization. It would not initiate contacts with the media;
rather, it would respond to media requests for information. Punding for
this network should come from four sources: the government, through
the National Academy of Engineering; media organizations; engineer-
ing societies; and corporations. This four-part funding could be useful
for ensuring the public credibility that such a network must maintain if
it is to succeed. The committee is convinced that, properly imple-
mented, this approach would be effective in improving public under-
standing of engineering and the engineering enterprise.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
la. Comprehensive, objective definitions are essential as a basis for
describing the engineering community and its constituent elements in
general terms. Such definitions are also indispensable for accurate col-
lection, display, and analysis of data about the profession.
lb. To understand adequately the flows and relationships of group-
ings within the engineering community, the pane! found it necessary to
construct a comprehensive flow diagram. Development of the flow
diagram led to the identification of two large populations a technical
reserve pool and a staff support pool that are essential and integral
elements of the engineering community.
lo. Currently available data bases provide only a limited under-
standing of the engineering community. Existing data were found to be
inadequate for making historical comparisons or constructing consis-
tent portraits of the engineering community. There is a strong need for a
more comprehensive and consistent set of data, available on an annual
basis, for use in tracking and assessing the supply and utilization of
engineers.
The committee recommends that the National Academy of
Engineering take the initiative to call together the various public and
private data-base-co]]ecting organizations to see how best to arrive at
commonality in definitions, survey methodology, and diagramming
methodology. Organizationalro~es can be determinedin the coordinat-
ingmeeting. The purpose Will be to ensure to the greatest degreepossi-
bJe that data collection efforts result in accurate and compatible data
bases that describe the engineering communityandits various compo-
nentsin totality.
2. The technical and professional societies have been generally
very effective in meeting the needs of the engineering community-in
OCR for page 50
50
ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
particular, those of their members. Although the activities and prod-
ucts of the societies are available to all, only an estimated one-th~rd of
the engineering community supports these societies with their money
and talent.
Steps should be taken to enhance the attractiveness of member-
ship in the technical and professional societies. Toward this end, the
committee recommends that the activities of the societies be explained
more fully to students during the ''nClergraduate years. In auction,
industry and government agencies should encourage engineering
employees to participate in the activities of the societies and should
provide support for thatparticipation.
3. Many of the problems that engineers must face are related to a
poor comprehension {anc! even apprehension) on the part of the general
public about the engineering community and its works. Yet today, the
public's perception of technology is a major factor affecting our coun-
try's (recision-making processes. Because the general public (lepen(ls
on the mass media for most of its information, any effort to improve
public understanding of engineering must focus on improving media
coverage.
The committee recommends that the NAB tale the initiative in
creating a "media institute '' that would provide centralized coordina-
tion of a nationwide network of technological information sources to
respond to media requests forinformation.
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1983. Occupation Employment Survey, 1983.
Fechter, A. 1984. The talent pool for engineering: Are the colleges the only source? Paper
presented at the Joint Meeting of the Scientific Manpower Commission and the Engi-
neering Manpower Commission.
National Research Council. 1984. Labor Market Conditions for Engineers: Is There a
Shortage? Proceedings of a Symposium held by the Office of Scientific and Engineering
Personnel. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984a. Computerized Manufacturing Automation:
Employment, Education, and the Workplace jOTA-CIT-235J. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Govemment Printing Office.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984b. Commercial Biotechnology: An International
Analysis tOTA-BA-218J. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govemment Printing Office.
Report of the Panel on Engineering Interactions with Society, in preparation.
Report of the Panel on Infrastructure Diagramming and Modeling, in preparation.
Report of the Panel on Support Organizations and the Engineering Community, in
preparation.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering work
