Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
ENGINEERING IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX SOCIETY 83 THE NATURE OF ENGINEERING Introduction It would be convenient were we able to begin our investigation of engineering with uncontroversial definitions of what engineering is and what it means to be an engineer. The fact is, however, that engineering encompasses such a complex and highly varied set of activities, and engineers have such a diverse set of skills and interests, that simple definitions are quite incapable of being both comprehensive and useful. Indeed, were we to begin with definitions, we would be answering at the outset, at least by implication, the very questions we have set out to investigate. Therefore, rather than proceeding abstractly and axiomatically, we will approach our subject more tentatively and from several vantage points, always seeking to illuminate its many facets while slowly building a picture of the whole. This is a method of investigation historians find both congenial and informative, but it is not an approach used only by historians. It is a method that those charged with characterizing contemporary engineering also find useful. The National Science Foundation, which collects statistical information on the education and employment of American engineers, has developed a three- part definition that includes as an engineer anyone who meets two of its three criteria. These criteria, formulated as questions, ask 1) Was the person educated as an engineer? 2) Does the person consider him-or herself an engineer? and 3) Is the person employed in a position classified as an engineering job? These three questions provide a good starting point for an investigation into the nature of engineering, for each directs our attention to a different way of conceiving of the subject. Asking if a person was educated as an engineer emphasizes the importance of formalized knowledge and knowledge acquisition in modern engineering as well as the role that schools of engineering play in certifying that their graduates are adequately trained to enter the profession. Since control of a specialized body of knowledge is one of the defining features of every profession, the ways in which that knowledge is systematized and transmitted to those wishing to enter the profession is a matter of great importance. While in the past engineers, like other professionals, acquired their characteristic skills through apprenticeship, today formal training in a postsecondary professional school is expected of all beginning engineers. The transmission of formalized knowledge is certainly the main concern of these schools, but
ENGINEERING IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX SOCIETY 84 we should also be mindful of the ways in which they socialize aspiring engineers in the patterns of thought and conduct appropriate to their profession. Such socialization was clearly a major part of the experience of apprenticeship, and today it remains a large part of what engineers learn during their early years on the job. One particularly fascinating question, but one that is difficult to answer, asks how the responsibility simultaneously to socialize and educate affects the ways in which the central ideas of engineering education are conceptualized and conveyed in engineering schools. Asking if a person considers him-or herself an engineer directs attention away from questions of public certification and toward the individual's professional self-image. This is not to say that one can simply certify oneself as a professional engineer, for such clearly is not the case. But beyond the educational attainments and memberships in societies that one expects of a professional lie questions of self-description that are of crucial importance to the individual and to the profession of engineering as a whole. What does it mean to conceive of oneself as a professional engineer and how does it influence one's conduct when dealing with members of other professions and with those who are not professionals? And if one moves from a job that requires engineering expertise to one that is essentially managerial, as so many engineers do, in what sense is one still a professional engineer? These are questions of considerable significance to engineers as they fashion their careers and to those who wish to understand better the nature of engineering. Identifying engineers by referring to the jobs they perform appears to be a direct and uncomplicated way of getting at our central question, yet here, too, the situation is more complex than appears at first sight. There are, of course, certain engineering specialties that are legally defined for purposes of certification. One can also survey engineering employment and identify the various jobs that require certain specialties in engineering. But a closer look at the actual employment decisions and career patterns of those who consider themselves engineers reveals a much greater variety of options and actions than such formal classifications would lead one to expect. Not only do engineers move between specialties, employers in private industry and in the government frequently hire engineers for reasons that have little to do with their particular technical competence. The most interesting question, therefore, is how employers seeking to get a particular job done communicate with engineers attempting to construct rewarding careers. It is the agreements they reach that determine which jobs are to be considered engineering jobs, and seen in this light, it is evident that the list of jobs that fall into this category will vary greatly over time.
