We like to discuss how important it is to think about the social impacts of engineering and science. We have also said how important it is to train engineers in social sciences in order to compliment their training to make such connections.
I agree with this thought process. But I think it is also important to discuss why all engineer/science types do not need to delve into these "soft sciences."
To simplify things we will consider a square and a circle. Now, the square looks like a square and has attributes like a square. It acts like a square. It feels like a square. The same goes for the circle and all things that circles encompass.
One person might say a square is better than a circle, while another says circles are better than squares.
Who is correct? Is it even important that one is better than the other?
The fact is, squares are only good as squares and circles are only good as circles. In order to build something that has the sense of both squareness and circleness, it is important to have both.
Society is something that is comprised of many different attributes. In a sense, it has square attributes and circle attributes, along with a myriad of other attributes. It is not important which attribute is most important because without all of the different parts, it would not be this lovely thing we call society.
In society, engineers are needed as well as human resource professionals and public relation specialists. Society needs mechanics, builders, cash register workers, police and firemen, as well as mothers, priests, and chiropractors. To say that one is more important than another is to say society is malfunctioning at some level and needs to be "fixed."
So, yes, it is important that we have engineers that think about social impacts. But to say that all engineers need to have social wherewithal to be considered good engineers seems to sell short the amazing diversity of culture.
Shane, I agree with you that diversity is something that makes our culture what it is and that we shouldn’t try to get rid of it through a homogenization or hybridization of the “soft” and “hard” sciences. But in my opinion there is much to be gained from requiring engineers and scientists (or to borrow your analogy, the square) to understand some of the basic concepts underlying the “soft” sciences and humanities (the circle).
ReplyDelete“It is not important which attribute is most important because without all the different parts, it would not be this lovely thing we call society… To say that one is more important than another is to say that society is malfunctioning at some level and needs to be ‘fixed.’” I would agree with you if circles and squares (or engineers and teachers for example) were valued equally by society. Unfortunately they are not. In our society, circles must aspire to be squares if they want academic prestige, high salaries, and social admiration.
I think the importance of requiring a square to understand, if not necessarily to emulate, a circle and its societal role is that such an understanding furthers cooperation between the two groups. In my experience, scientists and engineers often get frustrated with “softies” who can’t grasp the “obvious” technological and scientific importance of their work. They think that such individuals should educate themselves on the science before making a decision to support or oppose a scientific undertaking. Isn’t it reasonable for the circles to then expect the same of squares? It seems just as obvious to a homeowner that they do not want a wind turbine in their backyard for aesthetic, personal, and social reasons as it is to a scientist/engineer type that a wind turbine is a source of green energy and would perform optimally if located in the homeowner’s backyard.
Finally, with engineering in particular, the point of the profession is to help people, whether that be in the form of building a bridge, finding a new energy source, or treating wastewater. Why shouldn’t an engineer be expected to understand the social implications of their social work? Even just from an economic standpoint, an engineer who can follow social trends and modify their designs to conform to those trends is going to be more successful than an engineer who pretends their work will be isolated from all human life. Engineers are humans, and, as humans living in a human community influenced by human wants and needs, engineers should take the human aspect into account in the design process. This might very well entail a study of the history of a community, cultural norms, or even psychoanalysis.
As you pointed out, society is formed of circles, squares, and many other shapes. In my personal opinion this means that for me to be the best engineer that I am capable of being, I need to understand not only circles and squares but all the other shapes as well.
I agree with Katie that being a successful engineer understanding all of the different 'shapes' will make it easier to communicate the plans that need to be accomplished to make someone a successful engineer. I also agree with Shane in saying that we should embrace the diversity of shapes. Teamwork is essential part of being successful in the engineering world so isn't true diversity people who understand all of the shapes like Katie says and having diversity in people who are strictly one shape? But diversity is also having shapes that are combinations of both too. People who can move between being a square, a circle or even a triangle. These people I would consider to be Rouloux. They are the people who can be seen as a circle in some lights and squares in others. They are the people who lead teams, because just understanding social impacts or how the other think, but actually being able to change between both types of people lead to the people who are truly the great engineers. So I agree that we need people who are strictly squares or circles, people who understand circles who are squares and vice versa, but also people who are versatile and can be considered both a circle or square. THis is true diversity in the world and is needed to help make the world successful.
ReplyDeleteSo I agree that diversity is needed especially in the engineering world, but don't limit hte definition of diversity.