Reading Reaction #1 - Joseph White

Solving problems seem to be the purpose of the engineering profession (I’ll use the term loosely, for as Donovan points out, “what it means to be a professional has become seriously confused” (4)). Although this does not tend to come easily or quickly, there is a method used for approaching the optimal solution. When this method is not used, the culprit must be “wrong.” This poses an interesting problem when the topic of Global Engineering is considered and when thought is given to the conflict created in varying environments and possible causes or further effects of this mindset.

In my opinion (and I’m not sure too many would argue against it), most engineers tend to be arrogant and hard-headed: stubborn, personifying the idea of “wrong” mentioned above. They believe that the way they solve or approach a problem must be the “right” way, and they likely try to force this “correctness” on forms of opposition. An engineer must open his or her mind if only slightly, though, to other ways of thinking, for our society is becoming increasingly global. A mindset where one believes his or her own method is superior without accounting for other methods is simply ignorant. This behavior, unfortunately, does not appear to be unique.

I believe that this thought process is not only apparent, but can be attributed (at least in part) to our American society and the ways of thinking that it perpetuates. One example is our political system. It focuses deeply on 2 main parties that are constantly warring against one another. Occurrences of someone being persuaded over to the other side are almost unheard of: one’s own party is “right,” the other is “wrong:” many refuse to even listen to opponents. This is not a particularly practical method of choosing political ideologies though, because it doesn’t allow for easily combining belief systems or “the best of both worlds.” Another example is morality or how we as a society define these terms of “right” and “wrong.” Most would define them through religion and for many in America, this means Christianity. This belief system, though, also teaches these immobile ideas of “right” and “wrong,” allowing many Americans to extrapolate these ideas to other areas of their lives, and in regards to our discussion, includes engineering.

To achieve this idea of Global Competency in engineers, Downey et. al. specifies 3 important learning objectives: knowledge, ability and predisposition (4). In this same paper, the key element is given succinctly: “The key element…is the…image…of engineers working effectively with people who define problems differently than they do” (4). This element provides what I think to be the most important part (and method for solution) to this problem of thinking one’s method is “right” or the “best:” the fact that people define problems differently. One must ask the question: “How can my answer hold true for someone who does not even see the problem in the same light as I?” This question is important because it strongly affects what the solution to a problem might be based on who is working on it. One must take a great deal into account when considering how an individual may approach a problem, as Hess points out: “…culture includes not only the intangible beliefs of a people but also the domain of social action: rituals, work, trade, political institutions, family and kinship…” (Hess 2). Any aspect of a person’s life or background may influence how a particular problem is approached, proving that a “right” solution is not only an arbitrary assignment, but could easily be someone else’s “wrong.”