Brig Bagley
Reading Response #1
Engineering in the United States has a very distinct image: white collar, male, smart, technology, and innovation are all terms that often go synonymously with the term engineering. The process of engineering also has a well defined sequence of actions: see a problem or need in society or in an item, find a better solution, test the solution and throw it out into the public, repeat. To those of us in the United States, it is almost accepted that all of these terms and sequences are true for the majority of engineers and engineering in general. Few, if any, realize that engineering does not mean the same thing around the world. In fact the different views of engineers across the world differ so much that some may not even consider the other view to be engineering at all. Because of the differing perspectives of engineering, it is imperative that engineers are aware of the conflicts between cultures to be successful. In addition, engineering must not be labeled or categorized for certain types of people, backgrounds, or even defined as one distinct and particular process.
Engineering has a very bare minimum of universal ground. Although the perspectives may be different, engineers in near all countries are looking to better the world. Needless to say, nearly all professions hope to better the world.This makes engineering seem as uniform as the countries of the world. But it is true. According to the article, “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently,” by Downey and others, “engaging ways of thinking and understanding that differ from your own can refer either to ways of solving or of defining problem” (2). The very core of engineering depends on how people define problems and identify solutions to those problems. If engineers of differing cultures cannot agree on whether a problem is a problem, or determine if a solution is a solution, how can we expect any progress? Engineers must be aware of certain cultural differences to maintain common ground as well as respect the differing needs within that culture.
Society (especially in the United States) often labels every part of life and puts images on top of all aspects of the world. Women are refined and classy. Men are strong and dominant. Nurses are female assistants to doctors. Engineers are white-collar men. We as human beings are very aware of their social status and where they lie in all of these labels. We are also aware of where we fit into these patterns, and where we do not. As expected, we tend to move towards the labels that society associates with us. According to Lucena, “dominant images create expectations about how individuals in that location are supposed to act or behave” (5). Why would someone try to swim against the current? It’s much easier to go along with the direction things are going. Because of this mindset, the diversity and individuality that could benefit all of these different aspects of life is lost. To overcome this loss, it is imperative that people, (and in our case specifically, engineers), remove the social labels and barriers that confine the possibilities within the realm of engineering.
Your comment about engineers not representing a universal image within different countries makes me wonder if Britain’s system creates a more diverse and less discriminatory engineering field. As we discussed, within the U.S it is vital for an engineer to receive a degree from a top accredited university for him or her to be considered a “professional engineer.” This automatically puts a significant finical restriction on who is eligible to enter this field. If a person cannot afford the required extensive education then there is no hopes for them to succeed to become a professional. However, the status of an engineer in Britain is based upon their years of experience and where they have worked or been an apprentice. This allows the field of engineering to be available to a much larger percentage of people, despite their economic or financial situation.The key aspects are who one knows and where they can work. Unfortunately, this system does distract from the importance of formal education within the theoretical aspects of engineering which is extremely important.
ReplyDeleteIf on were to create the international standards for engineers both these aspects need to be considered due to their individual benefits. In addition, your comment about removing the “social labels and barriers that confine possibilities within the realm of engineering,” will help to make this field available to individuals of a more diverse economic situation. People have to be educated to “swim against the current,” and go against the socially constructed images that have been imposed in their life. It is not enough for one to recognize they are there, but one has to make a conscious effort to act against them if they desire change.
Indeed, engineering in the United States has come with this stereotyped image and your description of a “white collar, male, smart, technology, and innovation” truly captures the standard convention of what it means to be an engineer in the United States. One adjective I might also have included was “white” and even on our own campus this lopsided demographic in engineering is prevalent and should be noted. In particular, within our own reading assignments we have learned about what it means to be an engineer in Europe, and only briefly in any other area by comparison (Japan being an example). The fact that we are reading articles fixated on what it means to be a engineer from Britain and France, almost exclusively, eliminates the engineering perspectives we could have gained from Asia, Africa, South America, etc. and thus limiting ourselves again to what it means to be a global engineer and using a European model to guide our learning. Your response in particular shows the importance of becoming an engineer by learning and adhering to different cultural standards as a method of becoming a successful engineer but I find this difficult when we are only exposed to a primarily European alternative to engineering as a profession and its respective doctrines and principles.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of your reading response that I agree with, and is not brought up enough, if at all, is what it means to be an engineer. Before coming to this class, I had never even thought about what it meant to be an engineer let alone be encouraged to question this as if there was an alternative. After reading quite a few articles on what it meant to be an engineer in Britain and France it is clear that engineering varies widely even among what would be considered “similar” cultures. You mentioned the importance of understanding the conflicts between cultures and this really only skims the surface of what it would take to become a global engineer. Not only would you need to discern the culture you are within but also how to solve a problem, using your own engineering techniques, in a way that would complement the engineering solutions that are acceptable within that culture. There are so many variables and such little margins of error that is tolerated in engineering that adding a cultural aspect to the problem/solution can be very challenging. This aspect of engineering parallels appropriately into your quotation from Downey regarding the importance of engaging different ways of thinking and understanding than what is typical of that particular engineer in order to become a more globalized engineer.