Engineering is a relatively new profession compared with the professions of law, medicine, and the ministry. Like other professions, engineering struggles with such problems as redesigning the

Engineering

Engineering is a relatively new profession compared with the professions of law, medicine, and the ministry. Like other professions, engineering struggles with such problems as redesigning the curricula of its professional schools and raising standards for entry to the field. In addition, engineering has some distinctive occupational problems. Can it increase the commitment of its members to the profession in the face of mounting pressures not to pursue it as a lifelong career? Can it assume the responsibility for the social effects of technological change? As the progenitors of new technologies that are transforming modern society, engineers are among the most important agents of social change. This article will consider some of the problems and potentialities of the profession, that is, some of the factors favoring or inhibiting the further professionalization of engineering as an occupation.

In identifying various attributes of a profession, sociologists have often taken as their model the older professions of law, medicine, and the ministry. Although there is no consensus as to the definition of a profession, there is a growing awareness that professionalism is a multidimensional phenomenon and that occupations differ in their degree of professionalism.

Emergence of the engineering profession. Engineering as art long antedates engineering as a profession. The invention of the stone ax in the Paleolithic age was among man’s first engineering achievements. In the civilizations of antiquity considerable technological progress was made, as evidenced by such accomplishments as pyramids, aqueducts, canals, bridges, and lighthouses. Directing these engineering feats were highly gifted individuals, some of whom we would today consider engineers. But despite the outstanding work of individual engineers, no professional group came into being for many centuries. Several factors delayed the formation of a profession of engineering. The economies of ancient civilizations did not require the organized development and application of technology, for which an engineering profession was necessary. The prevailing technology was a product of trial and error, intuition, artistry, and the gross synthesis of experience, unsupported by science. In fact, there was pronounced contempt for technology in ancient times. Finally, the tradition of “craft mystery” interfered with the codification and public transmission of technical knowledge.

Social structure and engineering. The emergence of the engineering profession in western Europe and in North America points up the impact of industrialization on this occupation. Economic development requires and generates technological development, for which engineers and other professionals are essential. Since societies differ markedly in their level of economic development, we would also expect them to differ in their technological capabilities and in the nature and role of their engineering professions. In effect, we are hypothesizing that the relationship between the economic development and technological development of a society is partly mediated by its engineering profession.

For present purposes, economic development is indexed by per capita share of gross national product (GNP), and technological development is indexed by the number of patents issued in a year and the percentage of GNP expended for research and development (R&D) in any given year. In Table 1, countries for which data are available are ranked according to the GNP per capita variable. The higher the ranking of a country on GNP per capita, the more likely it is that it ranks higher on the size of its engineering profession and the number of patents issued, and on the percentage of GNP expended for research and development. These data suggest one possible systemic pattern of relationships between these variables. A highly industrialized society has the resources to educate a sizable number of engineers, some of whom, together with scientists, engage in research and development, for which a substantial proportion of such a society’s resources is expended; this organized approach to scientific discovery and invention results in increasing numbers of patents; and in turn, the process of invention—in which engineers play a prominent role (Gilfillan 1935, pp. 52, 82-91)—-stimulates economic development, which then confronts the engineering profession with new technical problems.

Another feature of the social structure (apart from the economy and technology) that influences the engineering profession is the political system. In highly centralized and relatively unindustrialized societies, such as some under communist regimes, the engineering profession may be disproportionately large because of the government’s concern with accelerating the process of industrialization. Under such conditions, the autonomy of the profession may be circumscribed and it may be called upon to perform functions other than those of a technological nature.

As the engineering profession becomes increasingly differentiated and heterogeneous, a recurrent question arises regarding the identity of engineers. Periodically, engineering educators, officials of professional societies, and census officials discuss the question, Who is an engineer? In the United States the census definition relies, in effect, on the respondent’s decision as to whether he is an engineer. Professional engineering societies emphasize formal training in an engineering school and/or a minimum number of years of engineering experience. This concern with clarifying the definition of an engineer reflects a changing social and technical environment of the occupation, which is due to the accelerating rate of growth of scientific knowledge and increasing levels of industrialization. The changing environment confronts the occupation with dilemmas as to the meaning of professionalism and the direction of further professionalization. These dilemmas arise in connection with the process of recruitment to the profession, the education of engineers, the career decisions of engineers, the functions of professional societies, the problem of responsibility for the social impact of technological change, and the prestige of the profession.

The engineering profession, probably more than the older, established professions, tends to recruit its members—at least in highly industrialized societies—from heterogeneous social origins. According to one study, a substantial proportion of graduate engineers in Great Britain have middle-class or working-class backgrounds: 36 per cent of their father’s occupations are white-collar and 22 per cent are blue-collar (Gerstl 1963, p. 19; see also Jahoda 1963, p. 54). Several studies of engineering students in the United States also indicate a substantial degree of recruitment from middle-class and working-class backgrounds: 44 per cent of the fathers of engineering students at Northwestern University pursue manual or white-collar occupations (Krulee 1963, p. 20); and 50 per cent of engineering students at the University of California at Berkeley come from working-class or middle-class backgrounds (Trow 1959, p. 68). In the Netherlands, on the other hand, opportunities for entry into the engineering profession appear to be more limited than in the United States and Great Britain: approximately 28 per cent are recruited from working-class and middle-class backgrounds (Kuiper 1956, p. 233, table 2).

The more heterogeneous the social origins of engineers, the more diverse, in all likelihood, are the motivations and values involved in their choice of occupation. In a study of students at 11 American universities who chose engineering as a career, 38 per cent stressed the “chance to earn a great deal of money”; 52 per cent, the opportunity to be creative and original; and 28 per cent, the opportunity to be helpful to others (Goldsen et al. 1960, pp. 43-44). A study of American students from 135 colleges and universities who chose engineering as a career in the freshman year found that 25 per cent mentioned money as a factor, 26 per cent mentioned opportunity to be original, and 7 per cent gave “people” as a reason (Davis 1965, p. 188). In Great Britain a study of sixth-form boys found that, of those interested in engineering, 32 per cent gave “money” or “good prospects” as their reason; 19 per cent mentioned that it affords an opportunity to be creative; and 13 per cent said that they were interested because it combines theory and practice (Oxford University 1963, pp. 37-38). At two London polytechnics a survey of evening students which inquired into their motivations for attendance found that 36 per cent hoped for a better-paid job, 10 per cent for more job security, 16 per cent for a more interesting job, and 9 per cent for a job with a higher social standing (Cot-grove 1958, pp. 102-103). In short, the values of money, prestige, security, creativity, integration of theory and practice, and helping people are but a few of the values affecting the choice of engineering as a career. The old hypothesis of a relationship between social-class heterogeneity and occupational attrition has recently found some support in a study of the occupational structure of the United States: “The more heterogeneous in social origins the young men entering an occupation are, … the greater is their tendency to leave it later for a variety of other occupations. This finding suggests that homogeneity in background fosters social solidarity, which lessens the inclination of its members to leave an occupational group” (Blau 1965, p. 490). Thus, we may infer that social-class heterogeneity among engineers very likely contributes to occupational attrition, because of reduced social solidarity.

The diversity of motives prompting students to enter the field of engineering also creates various difficulties for the profession. First, the very existence of a diversity of values regarding engineering acts to lower the feeling of solidarity among engineers as an occupational group. Second, the prevalent “extrinsic” values, such as money, prestige, and security, contrast with such “intrinsic” work values as the opportunity to be creative or to link theory with practice. Intrinsic values are probably more associated with commitment to a profession than are extrinsic values. Finally, the socially heterogeneous recruits to engineering impose an even greater demand for professional socialization during and after the period of formal education than would socially homogeneous recruits.

Educational patterns. The educational resources of a society, which vary with the level of industrialization, greatly affect not only the number of engineers recruited but also their quality and, in turn, their capability to contribute to technological development. The feedback effects of an adequate supply of well-trained engineers and scientists on economic growth has stimulated widespread interest in developing educational institutions and enlarging enrollments, as an investment in “human capital.” That facilities for educating engineers vary in large measure with the level of industrialization of a society can be shown by examining the relationship between the number of enrolled engineering students in various countries and the GNP per capita for these same countries.

Critical as is the quantity of engineers educated for the economic and technological development of a society, the principal problems of professionalism and professionalization revolve around the quality of their education. Engineering curricula are periodically reviewed by engineering educators and professional societies. This, to be sure, is necessary because the rapid rate of growth of science and technology requires that engineering schools continually revise their curricula to insure that they are transmitting the new state of the art. The task of reducing the time lag between the development of new knowledge and its incorporation into the curriculum is often fraught with difficulty. A case in point is the time lag involved in introducing courses on computers in engineering schools.

Designing and redesigning engineering curricula in response to technological change is beset by many problems other than recruiting a competent and adaptable faculty. One of the problems is that the practice of engineering is generally based on an undergraduate level of education. The fact that relatively high proportions of engineers in some countries have not received even this minimal level of training highlights the unsolved problems of professionalizing this occupation.

Associated with the time limitation of an undergraduate level of engineering education is the problem of determining how much of the curriculum should be devoted to fundamental sciences, to engineering sciences, to engineering applications, to specialization in the various fields of engineering, and to nonengineering subjects (American Society for Engineering Education 1955, pp. 11-23; Wood 1961). This problem is closely related to another, which is bound to receive more attention in the future, namely, whether engineers should be trained in a specific branch of engineering or in the fundamentals of engineering. The fact that the main branches of engineering—civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, and aeronautical—are becoming increasingly interrelated in new technologies makes this problem increasingly significant.

As might be expected, countries differ in the degree to which engineering education is oriented to the acquisition of knowledge in a particular specialty. In the United Kingdom, where about one-half the engineers are trained in part-time, “sandwich,” or cooperative programs in technical colleges, and in the United States, where the variation in quality in the more than 250 engineering schools is considerable, there is probably a greater degree of specialization than in some countries in continental Europe. In the Soviet Union and Communist China the degree of specialization appears to be greater still (Korol 1957, pp. 252-253; Chêng 1964, p. 98). In underdeveloped countries, which tend to emulate the educational systems of developed countries, an argument has been advanced for training general engineers, rather than specialists, in order to help initiate the process of industrialization (Hunt 1960).

Problems of redesigning engineering curricula in a quickly changing technological and social environment defy easy and durable solutions. They are even more resistant to solution without full cognizance of the types of careers pursued by engineers following graduation from an engineering school.

Career patterns. The process of professional socialization obviously does not end upon graduation from an engineering school. The organizational context in which an engineer works and the type of function he performs affect not only the course of his career in engineering but also his career orientation and his degree of commitment to the profession.

Unlike the members of some of the older professions, engineers are predominantly salaried employees, with the exception in some countries of a small subgroup of engineers who are self-employed and engage in consulting work (see, for example, Engineers Joint Council 1965, p. 17). Typically, engineers are employed in manufacturing organizations and in various construction operations of a governmental nature. Within the past several decades, as the number of research-and-develop-ment laboratories has rapidly increased, new work contexts have opened up for engineers. In the less industrialized countries most engineers still perform various production functions, whereas in the more industrially developed countries a rising proportion are engaged in research-and-development activities. This variation in function is suggested by the data in Table 2. In the United States and the Soviet Union, two of the more highly industrialized countries, approximately one-third and one-fifth, respectively, of the engineers work in research and development.

As several studies of occupations other than engineering have shown, the first job after graduation usually has more effect on career opportunities than do subsequent jobs. Engineering is no exception to this. Among the factors affecting the engineer’s first career decision is the quality of the engineering school he attended. A graduate of an elite school often has the opportunity to begin his career in an organization which is in the main stream of technological development. He also has the opportunity—as is true, for example, of the graduate of the école Polytechnique—to orient his career toward top management (Granick 1962, pp. 26-30).

If the engineer begins his career in a production setting, he is unlikely to subsequently enter a research-and-development organization or engage in teaching and research in an academic environment. The only two probable career lines open to him are management of a technical or a nontechnical function and the pursuit of an occupation other than engineering. The career path of an engineer in a research-and-development organization or in a university is probably quite different from that of an engineer employed in a production organization. In either case, the probability isTable 2 – Distribution of engineers by type of work, for selected countries: per cent

higher that he will not leave engineering for another occupation; on the other hand, the likelihood is that, after some years in research-and-develop-ment work, the engineer may transfer to a production or a management function, especially management of a technical operation. The relatively small percentage of engineers who enter teaching and research in an academic environment, as shown in Table 2, in all likelihood continue in this function; if they leave the academic environment, their career paths are likely to be in research rather than in production (LeBold et al. 1960; Gerstl & Hutton 1966).

As a salaried employee, the engineer experiences organizational constraints that he finds difficult to reconcile with his expectations as a professional (Kornhauser 1962). The type of function he performs as an engineer affects his role conception, as well as the length of his career in engineering. In a production function his role relationships involve interaction with production workers and engineering technicians, on the one hand, and with managers, on the other. As a staff engineer, he lacks the authority of the manager, and he tends to be treated, in some organizational contexts, in the same manner that an engineering technician or a production worker is treated. The norm of obedience is more characteristic of the relationship he has with his superiors and subordinates than the norm of service, which is typical of a professional, or the norm of autonomy, which is typical of a scientist (Evan 1962, p. 352).

As a consequence of the rapid rate of technological change, there is a growing tendency for the careers of engineers to be abbreviated. The knowledge and skills of engineers obsolesce so quickly that engineers, especially in highly industrialized countries, find it necessary to shift into management work or nonengineering occupations in the middle of their careers (see, for example, Evan 1963). No longer can the new graduate engineer assume, as some of his predecessors did years ago, that he will spend his entire working career in engineering.

To cope with the growing problem of technical obsolescence, programs of continuing education are being established in the United States, France, Germany, and some other countries. The theory and methodology required for the retraining of engineers in the middle of their careers remain to be developed. As yet there is scant evidence as to the effectiveness of continuing-education programs in helping engineers to cope with their technical-updating problems. Another career problem is the flattening of the salary curve with age, which may be related to the declining market value of older engineers undergoing technical obsolescence (see, for example, Kornhauser 1962, pp. 128-130). These and other career problems of engineers are solved in some countries, not by changing employers, labor markets, or occupations, but by means of emigration. The limited statistics on the migration of engineers makes it difficult to ascertain the countries of origin and destination of engineers who emigrate. However, we do know that this mode of adaptation to career problems has created concern in the countries of emigration. In the face of a shortage of technically trained manpower in most countries of the world, emigration of engineers is looked upon as a “brain drain.” This is particularly true in the case of a relatively underdeveloped country, such as Argentina, where engineers have emigrated in substantial numbers to the United States (Oteiza 1965).

In short, the organizational contexts in which engineers are employed, the types of functions they perform, and the types of role relationships in which they are involved have not been conducive to an effective process of professional socialization. After his graduation from engineering school, his work experiences often do not tend to imbue the engineer with a dedication to the occupation (Wilensky 1964, pp. 150-155) or an increasing awareness of the social consequences of technological change. Professional associations have a significant function to perform in making up for the deficiencies of the work context as an agent of professional socialization.

Prestige of the profession. The prestige of the engineering profession may be affected by, among other things, the attitudes of the public toward the engineer’s role in generating positive or negative social consequences of technological innovations. The increasing prominence of the role of technology in society has probably elevated the prestige of engineering in recent years. On the other hand, the fact that engineering does not require a formal education as prolonged as some other professions and the fact that the members are recruited from heterogeneous social origins may contribute to a lowering of its prestige, relative to other professions, in some countries.

The prestige of engineering has received some attention from sociologists in several countries. As a result of the interest among sociologists in studying systems of social stratification in different societies, several parallel studies of the prestige of various occupations, including engineering, have been undertaken. The methodological differences between these studies make a comparison of the findings hazardous. Nevertheless, on the basis of these studies, it is clear that engineering does not have the same prestige in all countries. For example, in the Soviet Union engineers ranked second in prestige as compared with other occupations (Inkeles & Rossi 1956, pp. 336-337); in the Philippines engineers ranked fourth (Tiryakian 1958, p. 394); in Great Britain they were in eighth place (Hutton & Gerstl 1964, p. 13); in West Germany they were in tenth place (Inkeles & Rossi 1956, pp. 336-337); and in the United States their prestige rank was 21.5 (Hodge et al. 1964, p. 290). Moreover, the data suggest that the prestige of the engineering profession varies inversely with the degree of industrialization as indicated by GNP per capita. Presumably, as the division of labor becomes more specialized in more industrialized societies and as the proportion of professionals in the labor force increases, engineering faces more competition from other occupations for rewards, monetary and other. In addition, as a society becomes more industrialized, the engineering profession tends to increase in size, which may also become a factor in lowering its prestige. Changes in the internal structure of the engineering profession and in its social role are likely to affect its prestige in the future.

Potential social roles. What types of roles engineers will play in the future depends in part on the course of professionalization of the occupation and in part on the course of political and economic development. If the occupation becomes increasingly professionalized, we may observe a threefold division.

The appreciable segment of the occupation that has received limited or low-quality training in engineering schools and whose knowledge is based largely on practical experience will tend to coalesce with engineering technicians (Evan 1964, p. 108). This tendency will be encouraged by the progressive application of automation to some of the production and design functions performed by engineers, thus, in effect, de-professionalizing some members of the occupation. At the opposite end of the expertise continuum within the profession, there is a relatively small but probably increasing proportion of engineers working at the frontiers of engineering knowledge, who will tend to merge with applied scientists. The intermediate and by far the largest segment of the occupation will continue to perform a high caliber of technical engineering work. This group may be impelled in one of two directions in the future: toward the acquisition of power at organizational levels or at the national level or toward a new conception of professional service.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-04