Global Thinkers and Diversity

It is very interesting to compare America’s individualistic mindset to Japan’s collectivist mindset. In America, there is constant competition and goal to get to the top. It is refreshing to hear about how another country is able to excel by having an extraordinary amount of “group effort and team spirit” (Honda 1). But this difference can be seen as both a negative and positive way. First off, the negative perspective is that there is very “little opportunity for individual creativity” (Honda 5) since the goal is to conform and have no disagreements. But in a positive light, this helps holds the group together and highlights the importance of teamwork and a sense of belonging to a group.

What I thought about most when reading the Americans working in Japan is how important it is to become a global engineer and learn how to be accepting and respectful of other cultures. Thinking about different cultures, I start to think about the United States. Especially in California, we are quite diverse and have many different people and people who have acculturated by combining U.S. culture with their own culture. But in Cal Poly, where there is such a lack of diversity, we don’t really get a chance to meet others who are different than ourselves. With a society comes dominant images and culture and it is inevitable to believe in that dominance when you have nothing else to compare it to. As a state school, we lack international students compared to private schools. How do we become understanding and accepting of others when we can’t even meet people with different cultures? And even if we did have people with different cultures at our school, how do we have everyone be able to get out of their own friends circle, which is usually a homogeneous group consisting people of their own race, and into a diverse circle?

Those who have been able to encounter different cultures have gained and thrived “as global thinkers, to make them far reaching in the way they look at things” (Legg), along with being able to learn how to work with different people in another culture. This idea of global thinkers is very similar to why diversity is a benefit. With different cultures, values, experiences, etc. comes different perspectives and thoughts that would help us not only in our education, such as in classroom discussions, but also for us as people to grow aware and accepting of someone different from ourselves. I’m not only talking about race and ethnicity but also other factors that shape a person like gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, religion, etc. I’m not saying that our engineers cannot become global engineers, but I think that diversity (a diverse staff and diverse student body) for Cal Poly can become a step and the beginning into becoming a thriving global engineer.

Honda (1992), “Working in Japan: An Insider’s Guide”.

Legg (1989), “American Engineers in Japan: Same Profession: Different World”.

Engineering Methodologies and Their Origins

The importance of becoming a global engineer could not be more emphasized than in the distinct differences found between American and Japanese engineers. The Japanese engineering method is highly based on an interest in success of the group rather than the success of the individual, as seen in the American model of engineering. What makes this so interesting to me is the motivational reasons that allow these unique methods of engineering to be successful. This is very intriguing because, as an engineer, I have learned we are looking at a very narrow scope of how engineering should be conducted. The following excerpt (found in the recommended reading section) clearly shows the reality of the different engineering methodologies,

“Such treatment is unthinkable for Americans. Some years ago I used a film from JETRO entitles “A Day in the Life of a Japanese Engineer.” In several scences, the “engineer,” explicitly identified as a college graduate, is seen helping production line workers repair or adjust equiment. He gets dirty and greasy with the men on the production line. A few students always reacted to this by questioning the authenticity of the film. Assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, they found such scene hard to believe.
Their expectations of an “engineering education” may be gleaned from a float in the Picnic Day Parade at U.C.-Davis a few years ago. The float featured a Mercedes-Benz. Stage money $100 bills had been inserted in the wheel covers. Engineering students in formal dress stood around the Mercedez and sipped champagne (more likely Budweiser). A sign on the side of the float said “Hard Work and Study Pays.” Even allowing for a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek humor, no survey of attitudes is needed to confirm the U.S. student perception that engineering is a route to high pay, not the factory floor.”

After reading this excerpt I found this very intriguing from the perspective of an engineering major in college. This particular section is very similar to my own experiences as an engineering major myself. Before picking my intended major in high school I was told by my friends, family and counselor that becoming an engineer would mean job security, prestige and most importantly (to them) a generous paycheck. This system of choosing engineering shifts the emphasis and motivatian to the individual and selfish gains rather than taking into account the group or society as a whole. From my experiences in high school and at this university the example above couldn’t be more true. We, the students, are constantly bombarded with statistics and figures of how much money each engineering major makes after leaving college and how important it is to the purpose of our college degree and we have even discussed this in ES 410. I have yet to read anything about the importance of contributing to society as one of the dominant images of attaining an engineering degree (or any degree for that matter) as seen in many of the readings about Japanese engineers.

At first, I thought both methods of engineering would work in the U.S. or Japan but after further readings and consideration at this point in time or the near future I don’t think it would be a possibility. The Japanese and U.S. children as a whole, and I am speaking generally for the sake of argument, are raised with a different mentality which translates to this difference in engineering ideologies. Every week the ICEX group volunteers at a nearby elementary school to teach robotics to 2nd graders to attempt to gain an early interest in engineering and specifically robotics. The second purpose and probably the most important is to get females and minorities involved in engineering before stereotypes set in and negatively influence them to stray from engineering. Each week we bring simple robots for them to play with and then hold a competition at the end of the class period. What I noticed as an outsider looking in was when a child won they would announce that they in fact were the winner or boast about beating someone else. This may seem very normal but that is not the case from what I have seen in Japanese sports. At a very young age Japanese baseball players are taught to love the sport from a group perspective (including both teams). When the game is over both teams are cheered for equally and it is common to not even remember the final score because there isn’t an emphasis on “winning” in the sense of who scored the most. The emphasis is on the sport and teams as a group rather than on the individual. A statement from another article articulates this point further,

“... the most important virtue is the striving for mutual harmony. In the company, the Japanese do not consider themselves as individuals but rather as a tiny part of a whole social system and they are very eager to look after the professional and personal duties that lead to the fulfilment of a perfect harmony. Defining themselves as part of a group does not make them feel unimportant, but rather comfortable and sheltered.”

I believe these ideals are what transfer to the dominant images of what it means to be an engineer in the U.S. and Japan. By learning about the Japanese engineering methodology and hierarchy, it is clear there is more than one way to create a system of successful engineers.My biggest question after reading this article still remains: Why are we not learning about this in our engineering classes (from a curriculum perspective)?

The Suez Canal

Daisy Resendiz
ES 410

The History of the Suez Canal

The history the colonization of Egypt helps to understand the Suez Canal. After the fall of the Napoleonic Empire, they moved into Egypt and helped them establish a “military army”, and then British came. The British were motivated by attaining a route to India. Because they held control over the waters, they also held in Egypt and Sudan. Because the British were reluctant to lose the control they had over the Suez Canal, then let the Egypt have a monarchy. Also, it is important to look at the predicament that Egypt was in and what eventually led to their decisions. The Suez canal was important to the economy to both the British and Egypt and its interesting to see how it played out. A lot of waiting and see what the other countries move would be. I also want to see how the Suez Canal today is affected, if at all, by the protests.

El-Sayed, Osman, Juan Lucena, and Gary Downey. "Engineering and Engineering
Education in Egypt." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (2006): 18-25

This article talks about the different colonial powers. The article talks about the French and the British and the different interests that they had in the country. The French helped them establish an engineering education and even, started the planning the Suez the canal. The British came in and the engineering teaching soon shifted to more hands on rather than theoretical. It also explains why the British did not want to let go their control over the Egypt. And also explain how they were able to still keep their foot in the door, so to speak. It also explains how today the United State are providing aid and how engineering is also affected by the United States.

Lucena, Juan, Gary Downey, and Hussein Amery. "From Region to Countries: Engineering Education in Bahrain, Egypt , and Turkey." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (2006): 4-11

This article helped me realize that the engineering methods of the Middle East are not the same. The idea that the Middle East has the same type of engineering because they hold some of the same culture and language was challenged. The article demonstrated that there are differences and purposes. This was one of the first articles that I found and helped me understand the differences and understand Egypt and get a better idea.

Dooley, Howard J. "Great Britian's 'Last Battle' in the Middle East: Notes on Cabinet Planning during the Suez Crises of 1956." The International History Review 11.3 (1989): 486-517.

This article talks about the British plans to ‘battle’ over the Suez Canal. Nasser had announced Egypt would build its own dam and that brought the British to a frenzy. The British has planned to attack and battle to gain control over the Suez Canal. However, there were there factors that had to be looked at. They had the support if Israel and wanted the support of the United Stars. The British reasoning for battle was that the Suez Canal was actually not apart of Egypt but actually an international piece that was an “asset of the highest importance” and arguing that Nasser had acted illegally. However D-Day was postponed so many times because of second – guessing and other factors, such as the support from other powers, were also put into perspective that the issues eventually came into the hands of the United States.

Pryce-Jones, David. “Remember Suez: Nasser and the Canal; Saddam and today.” National Review 10 Mar. 2003. Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 1 Feb. 2011
This article was an interesting read. It compares the situation to Saddam and oil to the situation of the Suez canal and Nasser. The article implies that action should be take in the case of Saddam unlike with Nasser. Since the British did use force they later regretted not doing anything “forceful” against Nasser. This contributed to my reading in a different light,. I do not necessarily agree with it, but it has made me understand the view point of the British during the Suez Canal crises.
Shupe, Micheal C., William M. Wright, Keith W. Hipel, and Niall M. Fraser. "Nationalization of the Suez Canal: A Hypergame Analysis." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 24.4 (1980): 477-93.

This article really puts the perspective that Nasser was in. It demonstrates why taking over the Canal by surprise was the best decisions. This article outlines the benefits that Egypt would receive from taking over the canal. Ando also reveals the past history of the Canal that has been a sort of struggle to gain profit from the canal. This article , I felt, did a good job of stating the facts even thought there are some biases. The writer also goes back and analyzes the countries as “players”, who was on what “teams” and what they benefited from the Suez Canal.