|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK + PDF PAPERBACK PDF BOOK PDF CHAPTERS Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 40
4
Achieving Chonge
STRUCTURAL ASPECTS BIND ISSUES
In any social system (of which engineering education is one),
organizational structure determines to a considerable extent the nature
of both the processes (functions and actions) that can take place within
the system and the products that result. Thus, structural features also
have a large impact on the ability of the system to adapt to external and
internal forces.
System Structure
it is worth examining the structure of the U.S. engineering educa-
tion system briefly to ascertain its salient features and their implica-
tions for strategies to change the system so as to achieve the vision
described in Chapter 2.
The nation's engineering education system includes not just higher
education but also K-12, community colleges, and continuous (life-
long) engineering education. These elements are embedded in the
larger U.S. society, whose political and economic influences typically
affect engineering schools through the academic institution of which
they are a part. Those socioeconomic and political factors also drive
demand for engineers, as well as the supply, recruitment, and retention
of engineering students.
In 1994, the system included 311 institutions that granted B.S.
engineering degrees or higher in accredited programs. It incorporated
not just the 150 or so "research universities" and "doctorate-granting"
institutions but also the roughly 160 other institutions that focus
40
OCR for page 41
ACHIEVING CHANGE
4
primarily on undergraduate education and produce nearly a thirc! of the
. .
nahon's engineers.
Across these many institutions, there is great diversity in terms of
size, age, traditions, research interests, ciepartmental structure, strengths
and weaknesses, and other characteristics. Some are urban; others are
in rural locales. Some are small colleges within a comprehensive
university; others are specialized technological institutions. Some are
focused primarily on a specific engineering field (such as mining or
chemicals, for example); and others are broadly balanced across fields.
The BEEd recognizes that the issue of scale is worthy of consider-
ation here. How many schools and departments of engineering does
the nation need to support? is 311 accredited institutions the right
number? is it too many? Too few? in either case, how can the number
be recluced or increased through external influence? Such questions
are difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Yet they are questions of
concern to academic administrators and to those in government (both
federal and state) who have to fine! the funds to support engineering
education. Realistically, in the U.S. system these determinations are
made, however inefficiently, by the free market of supply and demand.
Those market forces have produced the great diversity of engineering
schools seen today, and no pronouncement by any external body-
however authoritative is likely to affect matters significantly.
The diversity of the nation's engineering education institutions is at
once a great strength and a potential impediment to reform. Different
characteristics imply differing needs and differing capabilities to
change. One characteristic that most academic institutions share,
however, is clecentralized influence and authority at the level of the
university, the department, and the individual. Academic freedom
(and especially tenure) means, in effect, that each of these levels is
relatively autonomous and thus is able to resist change. Consequently,
it is difficult to impose major change within this system from the top
down. A strong force in favor of stability is exerted by the Accredita-
tion Board for Engineering and Technology and the various regional
accrediting bodies, which must review and in some cases approve
changes in curriculum, degree requirements, etc.
Another characteristic of academic institutions is that they are
vertically Signed organizationally. Vertical alignment means that a
1 The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology is composed of 27 pro-
fessional engineering societies; its accrediting business is carried out largely by vol-
unteers from academe, industry, and government. The board establishes a "floor" of
requirements for all engineering schools that wish to have their graduates considered
as engineers and, consequently, want its endorsement. Above the floor are unlimited
opportunities for schools to increase their quality and to exercise their unique mis-
s~ons.
OCR for page 42
42
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM
school is separated organizationally and administratively from the
rest of the university. It follows that collaboration between a school
of engineering and a college of liberal arts, education, or business, for
example, usually is difficult.
An important feature of the academic organizational structure is
the role that the university as a whole plays in the creation of
incentives in the engineering school. Although promotion and tenure
recommendations are made at the department and college level,
overall policy guidance is generated at the university level, and the
final decisions on such matters are made by committees representing
all academic units.
Finally, a major influence on the structure of universities is the fact
that their fun(ling is external. For public institutions, the state govern-
ment (letermines some aspects of long-range policy through its
support, and for all research universities, whether public or private,
federal research funding has a powerful influence on the organiza-
tional structure ant! research/educational emphases of the institution.
These structural features tend to ensure that the overall system
resists change. The walls between organizational units and the lack
of autonomous ability to change direction, above the level of the
individual, institutionalize a structural rigidity and conservatism.
Bmpilcotlons for Chenge Strotegles
The most obvious implication of the structural rigidity inherent in
the engineering education system is that chance must be effected at
,. `~' .,, ~,. . .
, - - - - - - cop -
the ..local', level- that IS, at the level of the school, (lepartment, or
individual. For a variety of reasons (see Massy et al., 1994), it is
already difficult to achieve consensus on neecled changes even at the
departmental level. The more elements of the system that must be
engaged, the more difficult the change will be to effect.
Certainly a significant factor affecting the potential for change,
however, is the imposing workload that engineering faculty face
daily. Although inclivicluals may be, in principle, more amenable to
change than other levels of the system, it is generally difficult for
them to respond to additional deman(ls on their time~emands that
any form of change usually imposes.
Thus, it is impossible to be prescriptive about actions that should
be taken. Both in substance anti in process, any modifications must
be adapter! to local values and circumstances ant] must recognize the
pressure they place on already stressed inclividuals and organiza-
tions. The diversity of institutions makes it likely that a "free market"
approach to change will be more effective than any central mandate.
Such changes will require the cooperation of the Accreditation Board
for Engineering and Technology and the regional accrediting organi
OCR for page 43
ACHIEVING CHANGE
43
cations; their close involvement in this process on a national level is
essential.
Another implication of the structural characteristics of the system is
that collaboration across organizational and disciplinary barriers must
be emphasized. The effort required to break down barriers may be
large, but it can be anticipated that the benefits might also be unexpect-
edly large.
The most powerful change agent for many of the 3 ~ ~ engineering
institutions, however, may be federal agency funding policy. Federal
funding is what created the present research-oriented structure of
academic engineering in the first place, and it can bring about change
faster than any other influence-especially among the research uni-
versities. Indeed, this process of"cultural change" is already well
under way through programs such as NSF's Engineering Research
Centers, Engineering Education Coalitions, and alliances for minority
participation and the manufacturing education and training awards of
the multi-agency Technology Reinvestment Project.
STRATEGY FOR CH8NGE
The task of the BEEd has been to:
.
understand the external forces impinging on engineering educa
tion and driving the need for change (Chanter 21:
~ ~ ~ , ,
· formulate a vision of the tuture of engineering education (Chap
ter 2);
· assess the current state of engineering education and identify the
challenges it faces in realizing that vision (Chapter 31;
· understand how the structure of the engineering education sys-
tem affects the possibilities for achieving needed change (Chap-
ter 41; and
develop the outlines of a plan to achieve needed changes.
.
That plan follows in Chapter 5. The BEEd wishes to emphasize,
however, that this study represents a preliminary effort, the results of
which are necessarily generalized and qualitative. The board has
provided an overview a top-level analysis. It remains for the engi-
neering education community at large to perform the follow-on work
in the context of their local circumstances and to make the detailed
changes needed to achieve the vision in terms that make sense within
their particular institutional setting.
Thus, in Chapter 5 the BEEd issues a call to action for all those who
have a stake in the performance of the engineering education system
and the quality of its products.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering schools
