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.

Jeff Forrester: Reading Reaction #1

While at first glance engineering in the United States and England may seem completely different, comparison illustrates a few of the many parallels.

The Engineering Technician (EngTech)

The lowest level of accredited engineers in Britain; an EngTech is required to have practical knowledge of engineering which is usually acquired through a professional review following an apprenticeship and minimal schooling. The training an EngTech receives is similar to that of an individual in a trade school in the United States. To be admitted to a trade school one must pass a simple aptitude test, which if they pass will be placed on a list to receive an apprenticeship. Once they begin their apprenticeship they become a journeyman and with more experience they can become foremen or supervisors.

The Incorporated Engineer (IEng)

The mid-level accredited engineer in Britain; the IEng needs three years of academic study and traditionally five years of experience before they can apply for a membership from an engineering institution. This is most synonymous with an engineering bachelor or master degree with internships and a year or two of engineering practice. Engineering students in the United States generally receive four to six years of schooling to obtain their bachelor or masters degree, which means that an IEng in the United States would have around 5 years of schooling and two years of experience.

The Chartered Engineer (CEng)

The highest level of accredited engineers in Britain, the CEng, needs four years of schooling two years of directed work experience and three years of experience as a self-sufficient member or leader of a team. The British CEng is similar to an individual with a PhD and some field experience or an individual with a masters degree and years of practical experience.

The compared levels all require similar years of preparation with Britain emphasizing more work experience and the United States emphasizing more schooling. This is not all that different because while many American universities have a significant amount of theory, they also have a fair amount of practicality woven into their requirements. In addition, many universities focus on practical experience (i.e. Cal Poly). Another similarity is the amount of regulations each country places on their engineers. Britain is more public with their control; they have SARTOR published, and require all engineers to have professional reviews in order to be accredited. In America, ABET accreditation and work reviews provide similar control with more gray area. Additionally engineering in Britain and America is viewed strictly as “a professional, white-collar occupation” (Smith & Whalley). While these similarities may seem somewhat strong, they do not overcome the cultural biases of these countries. An American with little or no higher education and many years of experience will find it hard to progress in the engineering workforce due to his/her lack of schooling while similarly a British engineer with extensive schooling and little experience will find it hard to move up until they acquire more experience. This is very representative of George Page’s comment of the “British view that an engineer is formed out of the sum of their experiences, not just the initial training they received” (Page).

Reading Reaction #1: Billy McVicker

When I think of engineering the three words that come to mind are technology, creativity, and innovation. These characteristics define what engineers strive to pattern their work life after. In the essay “The Life-Style of the Victorian Engineers,” Dr. Buchanan describes his findings of British engineers as hard-working, ethical craftsmen. British engineers in the early 19^th century were passionate about developing practical technology to help progress society. Buchanan focuses on the life-style of these engineers and the roles they played in the educational system. It is interesting to me how British engineers were so involved in training and mentoring the next generation of engineers through apprenticeships. I find this type of leadership and involvement in educating new professionals unique in other fields, such as the political field where competition for some position is very cut-throat. Buchanan goes on discussing the lack of British engineers’ willingness to incorporate theoretical knowledge and university training into the development of engineers’ training, yet I think this mindset comes from those that were raised in a society where this type of formal training is heavily pressed. I believe that the British engineers’ idea of training was developed from the thought that Cal Poly so eminently advertises, “learn by doing.” It is through this exposure to getting your hands on tools and building something that helps young professionals understand how things work that one can further understand the theoretical concepts of engineering. If you only read in a book about how a bicycle works, then you will be less capable of creating a better design. It is those that have ridden a bicycle and know the weak points of the design that can create new technology to solve problems to make bicycles better. British engineers founded many professional engineering institutions that contributed through papers to the theoretical base of engineering. When discussing the way engineers met and presented papers on their work, Buchanan states, “While this mass of readily available experience could not, any more than the traditional techniques of apprenticeship, impart new theoretical information, it did provide a very substantial foundation for the continuing education of British engineers…” I my experience at Cal Poly, I have found that working in the lab helps me understand the theoretical concepts taught in class. It is usually not until after I use the theoretical concepts in a practical hands-on setting that the theory becomes clear.

In the essay by Smith & Walley, “Engineers in Britain: A Study in Persistence,” it is stated, “In particular, the low status of British engineering and the relative lack of scientific and technical training have been held responsible for the state of Britain’s poor economic performance for over a hundred years.” I find this statement hard to believe because it was the craftsman that built the steam engine and the textile machinery during the early 19^th century. If these craftsmen could not quote the three laws of thermodynamics, then how could they build these machines that encapsulate the very concepts of basic physics? If one can understand what the problem is and knows what needs to be solved, then they are better equipped with the knowledge of how to use physics and chemistry to solve the problem. British engineers were very successful at creating new technology that drove the economy in the Industrial Revolution because of their passion, ability to collaborate with other engineers, and their ability to leave politics out of the picture to think logically about their situation.

Reading Reaction # 1: Jennifer Batryn

Understanding what makes an engineer and how different cultures and societies have approached engineering and their training can help us today to work effectively with engineers from all over the world, which is important in our increasingly global society. I found it interesting to read about the differences in some of the major European countries in terms of their style and methods of technical education. As we read in several papers, British engineering tends to be strongly craft based and focused on practical, hands-on training as opposed to a more theoretical education. This is in direct contrast to French or German approaches, which place a stronger influence on formal education and theory. In the article “The Globally Competent Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define Problems Differently”, authors Downey and Lucena claim that “people in the U.S. tend to highlight similarities across cultures while minimizing differences”. This can be a good thing in some circumstances, but it can also have detrimental effects because we then expect everyone else to carry out things the way we do. In terms of education, there is no right or wrong way to pass down engineering knowledge, but we are so used to the way we are taught in our own countries and we expect others to follow similar practices. As a result, we often view other methods as inferior.

My mentor from my internship this past summer was born and raised in China and has been doing his PhD work in Germany now for the past several years. He is very interested in cultural differences and the education systems in different countries and it was interesting to hear his perspective. For instance, he firmly believed that universities and education in England are lacking a lot compared to other places such as Germany and China. I wonder now if much of this has to do with the different approaches that these respective countries take in regards to technical education. Coming from China, which is another country that places high value on formal education and theoretical training, it is easy to see where he might conclude that a system that doesn’t value those as much does not provide as good of an education or training for engineering work. This brings up the question however of what good education really is. Is one method better than another or is the ideal education just a mix of theoretical and hands-on skills? If so, what is the proper mix between these and how do we find that balance? In addition, I think this also stresses the importance of trying to understand and appreciate other culture’s approaches for what they are.

This idea of understanding cultures also ties in with the overall theme in the article “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” by Horace Miner. Miner looks at American society from an outside perspective and while many of his “observations” of American lifestyle seem exaggerated and blown out of proportion, I feel like he brings up an important point. Too often it seems, we learn about different cultures and because we cannot truly understand them, we make our own assumptions and try to explain their practices and habits from our own perspective and preconceived notions of what is right, wrong, normal, and acceptable. Miner states that, “Our review of the ritual life of the Nacirema has certainly shown them to be a magic-ridden people. It is hard to understand how they have managed to exist so long under the burdens which they have imposed upon themselves.” Not knowing that the “Nacirema” were actually just ordinary Americans, it would be easy to agree with Miner’s conclusions about their unusual habits and ritualistic society from his report and observations. However, it is because we have an extensive prior knowledge of their actual culture that we can see how inaccurate certain portrayals of other people, customs and ideas can be. What then is a better way to learn about other cultures without misrepresenting or distorting large parts? There doesn’t seem to be a clear answer.

In our present society, we need to be able to effectively work with people from a multitude of different backgrounds and perspectives and with diverse ways of approaching problems. This can best be done by striving to learn about other cultures and accepting their methods and styles of engineering as valid and as having something to contribute to our global engineering pursuits.

Reading Reaction #1: Jenny Brooks

Juan C. Lucena’s article, “National identities in multinational worlds: engineers and ‘engineering cultures,’” was the first article I have read that introduces the importance of understanding international engineering from a liberal arts point of view. To many within the United States, engineering is a profession that is only accomplished by receiving a degree from an accredited university. However, as this article states, on an international level that is not the case. In many different countries the title of an “engineer” is established with little education, but years of hands on experience. This fact concludes that individuals of these countries are under a false image off the qualifications of being an engineer at an international level, since each place is different. As a result, Lucena describes the importance of engineers to understand “the main goal of engineering cultures is to help engineering students learn to work with people who define problems differently than they do” (5).

Even though specific cultures have been evident for long periods of time, there is the misconception that they never change or that everyone in that culture is the same. These socially constructed images are what create racial classifications and the different levels of privileges that are distributed. While these dominant images are constructed in society, peoples reactions are what can be encouraged to change, just as an engineers understanding of the culture they are working in can be adjusted. Through a liberal arts perspective “engineers [can] understand what it means to be an engineer in different countries [and] can address the problem directly” (7). I believe that this view is vital to an engineer’s education, may it be through a university or apprenticeship, because it forces an engineer to consider the fact that their work may or may not be beneficial to the local people depending on their unique circumstances. If an engineer has not learned about the locations history, culture or people and does not involve these aspect into his work ,he his not completing his job to what I consider a professional level.

In addition to Lucena’s article I found Angus Buchanan’s paper, “The Life-Style of the Victorian Engineers,” an interesting comparison to the United States history of engineers. Through extreme detail Buchanan describes the history of how engineers appeared and their work system in Britain from the very beginning. This gives an explanation of why it is so different from the system in the U.S and why so many engineers who “enjoyed the benefits of the old system were understandably reluctant to acknowledge the advantages of a system which placed more emphasis on theory than on practice” (3). I feel that this system may be more beneficial when it comes to understanding the culture of engineering. For the engineers abilities are based on their years of experience, knowledge of the area and jobs that they have worked on, instead of how many years they attended a university and how highly that university is rated. The British system may result in a more aware perspective of the engineer’s field in relation to the surrounding communities and their culture. However, Britain’s form of engineering education does not prepare their engineers at an international level any better than the system that is implemented in the U.S. Both need to incorporate aspects of each others types of learning and a global scale for the education of engineers needs to be in placed. I strongly believe the only way this is possible is to look at the field from a liberal arts point of view because then it can be universally understood.

Reading Reaction #1: Alana Snelling

“Behind every machine is a face.” (Kranzberg) History about humans has been dated back ever since man can remember, but why hasn't it always included science and technology? Even the small amount of research of science and technology did not appear in our history until the 18^th century. This is of interest to me because it depicts what was of importance to the general public during that time period. During that time period the general public was interested in literature and romance; science and technology was very far from that. They did not focus on science and technology possibly because they believed there was no future for it to come. This I believe is because it depends on the importance of a subject matter in the context that it is being introduced. Who then ultimately decides whether it will be included or erased from history? “What counted was the latest discovery; nothing useful could be gained from a study of science which had already been superseded.” It was the idea of, why study something that has already be done, thats wasting time. It is as though everything new has to prove itself to society before it can even be thought of as something legitimate. Throughout “Science-Technology-Society: It's as Simple as XYZ!,"Kranzberg spoke on how technology is a "prime factor in shaping our values, institutions, and other elements of society." For example, if our government officials were to use the same frame of mind about not looking at history, then there would be no improvements in our government. The same problems would occur over and over again because we refused to think history as an important entity to our future. By not looking at the progression of something, it hinders the ability for improvement.

Who decides when something is relevant enough to included in history? That is where science and technology fell through the cracks. Science innovated ideas that were so beyond what was typical that it could have been hard for society to even fathom for such ideas to be true. Because of such large ideas science and technology presented, they pushed the limits of what is “normal” or and how we distinguish what is “normal.” Science and technology have in a way teamed up together as if they were the two underdogs that decided to push the limits to come out on top. Science and technology have both allowed countries that were once considered to have low expectation such as China, to rise to their full potential and become a leader of the pack. Much like how technology can be shaped by individuals on the purpose that it needs to be used, the ways in which engineering has been trained is different to each area in the world. For example, the deciding factor of whether you are a trained engineer in Britain is based on the experience in the work place. Compared to the United States who considers trained engineers to have degrees and accreditation. This makes me question whether our level of engineering in the United States is equal/below/above engineering in other countries. Individuals in the class spoke about how engineering in the world is very similar in the way that they use the same math and arithmetic. But I question this idea because if every country has different qualifications as to what an engineer is, then that would not make them homogenous in the qualifications to become an engineer. It would make each country diverse in the teachings and understanding of what an engineer does. This causes competition between countries when it comes down to who can make the better product.

I believe that the diversity of what it means to be an engineer causes the engineering field to constantly re-innovate products that consequently aid society. For example, once we buy that new iPhone on sale, we all know that Apple is already in the lab making a new version. This is a modern day example of what happened in Britain at the Paris Exhibition of 1867. In "Making the Modern World: Inventing Engineering,” it was stated that, “influential people began to argue Britain’s position as the principal industrialized nation would become unsustainable if she did nothing to improve the technical education of her people.” With that said, all engineering companies know that in order to stay afloat in this economy, innovation of technology, science, and education are key for engineers. Will these innovations continue to help society or will they hurt our environment and harm our health? It seems as though the public does not control that answer, only engineers and industries can decide.