Standing Innovation by Mandy Herrmann

I am struggling to exemplify Stearns’ claim that “the discipline of history is a source of innovation and not merely a framework for repeated renderings of established data and familiar stories” (p.4). History is normally taught in a monotonous way, as if everything on the timeline cleaning happened, no overlapping, no messiness. It certainly becomes a familiar story, a tuneless drone. It is very important to study history, but it had not occurred to me to do so with the motivation that it is innovative. In my own words, innovation is an improvement, a step up, a new addition or idea on something already existing.

Someone described engineering on the first day of class with the term innovation. I am trying to simultaneous think of innovation as historical knowledges and engineering, and discern if the two correlate to the same concept of innovation.

Historical knowledges, information about a past event, can be used in a present context in a new way. The past can produce insights to the present and future, thus innovation: making something new from the old. Today (12 January 2011) marks a year since the earthquake in Haiti. It is documented history even though Haiti is still struggling with the aftermath. A lot happens with in a year, but this event lends more information than simply a date and death toll, especially since recovery is no where to be found. It would serve historians and engineers alike to study the effects of the earthquake on Haiti’s infrastructure. The information gathered about the history of Haiti’s infrastructure and where the earthquake hurt the country most could swiftly transfer to an engineering innovation today, directly affecting Haiti. It stemmed from knowing a history. Thus, history and engineering do relate to the same innovation, and can work together towards that goal.

I am troubled with the way I have used “engineers” in the above analysis. For the sake of the argument though, it was appropriate to generalize. Truthfully, I can not even define engineering, which is not that problematic because it needs to be contextualized by a society and history. Although, I do feel closer to a definition with the comparisons we have thus far made between engineering in the United States and Britain, in that maybe it does not have just one definition.

If we were to examine how engineers would approach the destruction in Haiti and making some innovations, it would need a cultural awareness and positioning not offered in physics. The authors of “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently” explain that “engaging ways of thinking and understanding that differ from your own can refer either to ways of solving or of defining problems” (p. 2). I find it most exhausting to think of all the different ways people can perceive the same thing. It is limitless. This can be brilliant in a brainstorming situation, but certainly troublesome when no one can agree on the root of a problem and the way to solve it. A common ground must be engineered. Perhaps history is that foundation: a familiar, yet potentially innovative story that can link the most technical of minds.

I need this analysis to come together. I presented a problem: a schism between history and engineering and their separate but united innovations. By addressing this interlinked innovation it was necessary to comment on how engineering has to be defined by the individual who identifies her/himself in his/her academic background and culture. I have discovered through this reaction that academic disciplines leak into each other. Interconnectedness is everywhere, but when it is not addressed problems arise.