| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 53
Page 53
4
Engineering and Social Dynamics
In previous chapters we have examined the development of the
engineering profession in America and drawn some tentative
observations about the nature of its actions and reactions, in
earlier periods as well as recent times, with respect to the larger
society of which it is a part. In this chapter we attempt to
consolidate those historical characteristics and tendencies into a
more generalized model of the dynamic interactions of engineering
with the larger society. We discuss the effects of those
interactions on the profession and society as a whole, and attempt
to establish some key areas where functional problems may exist now
or in the future.
Fluctuating Supply and Demand
The Societal Demand-Pull Factor
A principal driver of technology development is societal demand
for goods and services. Furthermore, an advancing technology itself
tends to stimulate demand, if the technology accords with existing
societal needs. Societal attitudes toward engineering and
technology development also have a major impact on the type and
level of demand for engineering-related goods and services. The
demand for technological goods and services translates into demand
by industry and government for engineers in different disciplines.
This is the "demand-pull" factor. Industry is highly specific about
the kinds and mixes of skills it
OCR for page 54
Page 54
requires in engineers it wishes to employ. Yet the nature of
these demands changes rapidly in response to the changing business,
technological, and general economic environment. Substantial
changes in the pattern of government demand—particularly in
the defense area—are increasingly a major factor. In a context
of rapid technological advancement and numerous weaknesses in the
educational system, it has become more difficult for industry's
changing expectations to be met within the confines of the present
system. Therefore, there are movements in the direction of
industry's modifying its demands or joining with schools in an
effort to improve the quality of the supply of young engineers.
The demand-pull for engineers and engineering products is quite
different from the "supply-push," which is the principal driver for
scientists and scientific research findings. Indeed, the
supply-push of scientific advances is one of the primary stimulants
to industry demand for engineers. This difference in motivations
and dependencies is a major factor in the different societal
perceptions (and professional roles) of engineers and
scientists.
Mechanisms for Meeting the Demand
There are serious questions about whether the educational
system, organized along disciplinary lines that were formed in the
nineteenth century, is adequate for responding to today's business
and technical problems. The same nineteenth-century divisions are
reflected in the professional societies and associations,
reinforcing the compartmental nature of engineering.
The compartmentalization found in engineering institutions
suggests that it would be difficult for new disciplines to develop
in response to new societal demand. But this has not been the case.
Hybrid fields such as environmental, nuclear, aerospace, and
computer engineering have emerged rather quickly to meet demands in
recent decades. There was little resistance by the established
educational infrastructure. In practice, engineering schools were
eager to accommodate the new growth areas. Among practicing
engineers there has been considerable movement across professional
boundaries to meet the needs of an emerging technology—as seen
in the aerospace field and, most recently, in the composite
structures area.
Apart from internal adjustments, another mechanism by which the
supply of engineers is adjusted to meet demand is the use of
foreign engineers, trained in the United States, to fill shortages.
This is particu-
OCR for page 55
Page 55
larly true in the case of Ph.D. engineers, since a
disproportionate number of current U.S. doctoral candidates are
foreign nationals.
There is a fine line between shortage and surplus of engineers.
To a great extent the existence of either one is a matter of
individual perception. But any deviation (real or perceived) from a
balance between the two tends to cause turbulence in the profession
and in industry. This problem is intensified by the fact that
demand tends to alter more quickly than supply can be
adjusted—it takes at least four years to educate an engineer.
Thus there is necessarily an out-of-phase quality to the time
frames in which demand and supply operate.
By and large, however, there has been sufficient flexibility in
engineering education, and in the profession as a whole, to meet
past needs. Yet there have been significant changes in societal
attitudes and values, as well as in the nature and scope of
business, that will affect the demand for engineers and
engineering-related products. The elasticity of the supply system
will be tested. It remains to be seen whether it can continue to
function adequately under current and future conditions.
Factors Limiting Supply Response
In an assessment of the adequacy of the engineer supply system a
number of important variables come into play. One of these is the
makeup of the pool of incoming engineering students, in terms of
both demographics and academic ability.
Census data indicate that the number of 18-year-olds in the
population began to decline in 1982, and will continue to fall off
until the mid-1990s. It is true that a higher percentage of
students have been opting for engineering studies in recent years,
but that percentage is variable, so that the overall drop in number
of students entering college may become significant for engineering
enrollments in the future. An offsetting trend currently is the
fact that more women have been entering engineering programs. The
percentage of undergraduate female students is now around 15
percent nationwide, but the increase in female enrollments has
slowed markedly in the past two years (Engineering Manpower
Commission, 1984). Enrollments of Orientals are quite high: 4.2
percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in 1983, for example, went to
Asian/Pacific graduates; in California, Orientals accounted for a
full 32 percent of undergraduate engineering degrees (Panel on
Engineering Graduate Education and Research, 1985). However,
enrollments of other minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics,
remain low.
Apart from quantities, another limiting factor is the variable
ability
OCR for page 56
Page 56
or preparedness of the student pool. Engineering deans report
that SAT scores of entering engineering students are at an all-time
high, and have recently surpassed those of liberal arts majors for
the first time. Interest in engineering over the past several years
has been such that the better-quality schools have had to turn away
applicants with strong qualifications, for lack of room. This
presents a problem in itself, since it means that potentially
talented students are not able to acquire a high-quality
engineering education. An interesting corollary of the increased
attractiveness of engineering is that the demographics of
engineering students have also changed recently: engineering deans
and faculty note that many more students are now coming from the
suburban middle and upper-middle class.
A different factor that may have implications for engineering
supply in the future is that, in general, the level of math and
science literacy in the secondary-school population is declining
(see, for example, National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983). Although test scores of current engineering-school entrants
are higher than ever, the scores of the overall pool are lower than
ever. This trend, if it continues, cannot help affecting the
quality of engineering students in the future, particularly as
student career choices seem to be strongly affected by shifts in
the perceived employment prospects for a given field. The
antitechnology sentiment is an underlying current that may once
again become overt, as it did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Because such shifts in perception affect the nature of demand for
technological goods and services, they also affect the demand for
engineering personnel, and thus indirectly the supply as well.
Current engineering students are among the most able in their age
cohort. If engineering were to become less popular as a career
choice, the drop in quality of applicants could be precipitous. In
addition, the fall-off in overall math/science literacy must be
viewed against a backdrop of greatly increasing emphasis on math
and science in engineering by the year 2000.
Salaries of engineers have been a strong point in attracting
students, particularly during the recent inflation/recession cycle.
But it is becoming widely recognized that, after the initial five
years in industry, engineering salaries tend to flatten out in
comparison to other professions (in fact, even in comparison to
some skilled workers) (Engineering Manpower Commission, 1983a,
1983b). If there are indeed shortages of engineers, salaries do not
reflect that fact. Concern about this and the related issue of
quick obsolescence of the engineer may combine to reduce interest
in engineering as a career, if the economy continues to
improve.
OCR for page 57
Page 57
Adaptability in the Educational
System
The focus of the delivery system for engineers is the
engineering educational system, where stresses resulting from
changes in the nature and intensity of demand are felt most
acutely. Under pressure on the one hand from industry to provide
specifically trained graduates, and on the other from students and
many professional groups to provide versatile professional
education under adverse classroom conditions, engineering schools
must be resilient.
Engineering education is subjected to conflicting pressures over
the type of preparation it should provide. Essentially three
divergent approaches are represented: (1) greater specialization;
(2) broader, more general technical education; and (3) the
inclusion of far more general content (e.g., liberal arts) in the
engineering curriculum.
Arguments For and Against
Specialization
The engineering profession has always undergone pressure to
strongly specialize engineering education. Industry in particular
is often insistent that students do not specialize early enough in
their education. This belief tends to be reinforced by engineering
faculty within the various disciplines. At the same time, as panel
members from industry report, many practicing engineers regret that
they did not focus more intensively on their areas of
specialization while in school.
However, because of changing technology and demand it is likely
that many engineers will find themselves working outside the
discipline in which they were educated at some point during their
careers. Also, within a given discipline, engineers are likely to
find themselves learning and using new skills. This
transdisciplinary movement has already occurred on a large scale
several times in the past, and the capacity of engineers to
accomplish it successfully has been valuable to industry and to the
nation. Thus, educational institutions should be cautious about
becoming more compartmentalized and providing more specialized
training. Instead, what is needed is a good balance of
specialization and breadth of courses in the individual's program
as well as in the overall curriculum.
There is a persistent school of thought that argues that, in
addition to a broad engineering education, engineers should receive
a much more thorough grounding in nontechnical subjects. The
rationale here is that exposure to the more traditional elements of
a broad, general education
OCR for page 58
Page 58
would make engineers more well rounded, and thus stronger
professionals and better, more flexible engineers.
However it is best accomplished, it seems clear that the
uncertainty and unpredictability inherent in the current period
argue for a greater, rather than lesser, flexibility in the
educational system and its graduates. Some alternatives to greater
specialization are emerging that may help to bring about this
result.
Alternative Approaches
One useful approach involves emphasis on basic
studies—generalized "core" courses for all engineers—in
the first two or even three years. This approach is not
new—the University of California at Los Angeles was perhaps
the first to attempt it, in 1945—but it need not be new to be
valid. The basic-studies approach has been successful in the past,
and is still being applied by universities today.
Another older practice that still has value is the five-year
degree program. Most such programs have been discontinued because
of economic competition from four-year programs. Some schools
continue to offer the five-year degree as an option, but Dartmouth
College is probably alone in maintaining it as a requirement. The
extra year affords the opportunity for stronger grounding in the
basics (and perhaps in nontechnical subjects) along with greater
specialization.
Yet another approach is the "cooperative" program offered by a
number of schools, which features several school terms spent
working in industry. This approach has the advantage of offsetting
the additional expense of a fifth year (through salaries) while
affording the student an opportunity to become oriented to work in
the "real world" and to make valuable contacts in industry.
Another trend that should be noted is the emergence of the
"engineering technology" degree program at several major
universities. In addition to providing a broad technical education,
these programs train students in drafting and other mechanical
skills that are no longer required of engineering school graduates.
Many engineering tasks nowadays do not demand a full range of "old"
and "new'' skills simultaneously. Thus, the engineering technology
degree affords companies the advantage of more differentiated
staffing.
Another major alternative to greater specialization in
engineering schools is afforded by continuing education. Many large
industrial corporations now provide some degree of
postbaccalaureate training in-house. Many others do not. The
expense involved is great (indeed, small companies often cannot
afford to offer training at all), but if
OCR for page 59
Page 59
industry does not feel that schools are turning out a product
suitable for its needs, or if experienced engineers are felt to
require some "retooling," this is certainly an effective approach.
Industry training is not the only avenue of continuing education,
however. Schools offer part-time and evening curricula geared to
the practicing engineer, particularly in urban areas. This option
is often taken solely on the initiative of the individual engineer,
perhaps with tuition reimbursement; there is also the possibility
of corporations offering part-time daytime schooling as an employee
benefit for engineers in certain specializations. Other
opportunities for continuing education are offered by professional
societies and commercial houses in the form of short courses,
seminars, and correspondence courses. Finally, computer-aided
instruction at home is becoming increasingly viable with the spread
of home computers. The panel expects course-ware offered through
this medium to become quite diversified and sophisticated. Thus,
there are many opportunities for continuing education, with the
majority of them available to any engineer.
The Impact of Technological Change on
Employment
In early nineteenth-century England, as the Industrial
Revolution was taking place in that country, sporadic outbursts of
sabotage of looms and other steam-powered factory machinery began
to occur. The attacks were being made by groups of workmen inspired
by the example of Ned Ludd, a possibly mythical Leicestershire
weaver. These spontaneous protests by "Luddites" actually delayed
the implementation of new technology in certain English industrial
centers. In the present day, the shadow of the Luddite rebellion
continues to fall across the concept of automation as one of the
potential consequences of technological change.
Potential Impacts on Society
In terms of effects on employment in general, the most
significant technological change in the offing is
automation—in its modern form, the introduction of
computerized systems (whether robotic or not) in the workplace that
replace or obviate human workers. One result is technological
unemployment or "displacement" of workers. This is a potent
political and economic issue. Technology ("mechanization") was
blamed by some for joblessness during the Depression, although the
actual causes were quite different (Layton, 1973). It is not even
certain that large-scale job displacement will now take place. It
is likely
OCR for page 60
Page 60
instead to be a highly dynamic process, with adjustments being
made continuously (Office of Technology Assessment, 1984). However,
whether or not severe displacement does occur, the panel believes
that public perception of it is the key issue. It may well be that,
like environmental issues in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
concerns about the employment effects of emerging technologies will
now be the basis for strong frictions in society. These concerns
may do more harm to both human and engineering interests than the
environmental issue did and must therefore be addressed
explicitly.
The outlook is for substantial displacement of workers over the
short run in both the manufacturing and service sectors. The latter
is often overlooked; in fact, automation may displace
service-sector jobs at a rapid rate. One has only to think of word
processing machines with remote printers that greatly increase the
output of the individual (and are increasingly used by
professionals rather than typists), or large copying machines that
auto-feed at high speed, collate, and bind automatically, to begin
to envision the scale of effects on the office alone. In any case,
it is impossible to predict the amount of displacement that will
occur in either the service or manufacturing sector—too many
variables are involved. We do not know, for example, how the growth
of the service sector is affecting technology, or how technology
will respond to new services. The rate of implementation is an
unknown, as is the capacity of workers to adapt by any of a number
of means. Another important unknown is the degree of resistance
that American workers will demonstrate against the implementation
of the new technologies.
It is certain that automation will also create jobs at a
substantial rate in both the service and manufacturing sectors,
although in the service fields these will probably be
lower-skilled, low-wage jobs in health services, food services,
etc. However, the panel believes that new jobs in this sector will
not offset jobs lost or diminished through the introduction of
automation.
Taking the long view, the panel concludes that it is possible to
be optimistic about the effects of increasing automation on general
employment. The economy has historically been very inventive in
creating new jobs. Because changes in technology usually bring new
industries and increases in demand, they generally alter employment
rather than reduce it—although the time-scale can be
sufficiently long so that harm to individuals is not prevented. For
example, people were displaced from cottage-industry weaving in
Europe in the eighteenth century by "automated" looms; but a
century later even greater numbers were employed in industrial
weaving. Because career mobility is
OCR for page 61
Page 61
greater today, individuals can more often avoid economic harm.
In the United States, people displaced from mining and
manufacturing from the 1950s on have tended to enter the burgeoning
services sector. It is important, however, not to let such
generalizations about trends mask the fact that the negative impact
of technological change in many individual lives can still be
profound.
The essential point is that, if change is managed well by
society, improvement (rather than deterioration) of the quality of
life is quite possible. A case in point is the gradual reduction in
hours worked per week since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution. The spread of ''flex-time" in recent years is perhaps a
sign that even the 8-hour workday is beginning to give way to what
could become a less-than-40-hour workweek. Labor savings are, after
all, one of the major reasons behind the development of automation
technologies. There is no reason to believe that their introduction
will necessarily have catastrophic effects on society.
Potential Impacts on Engineering
Employment
In the context of engineering employment, technological change
has impacts not only through automation of manual tasks, but also
in the form of new technology and discontinuous change in
technology. (The production of a controlled atomic fission reaction
might represent the first, while the invention of the transistor is
an example of the second.) We have examined a few cases of the
emergence of new disciplines in response to demand for a new
technology, as well as the response of engineers to the rapid
obsolescence of an established technology. In both cases, as long
as the change was not too sudden, engineers and the educational
system adapted successfully.
The effects of automation on engineering employment are somewhat
different, and should be examined separately. There will be
considerable displacement of engineers brought about by the
implementation, in the manufacturing sector, of computer-aided
design and manufacturing systems (Office of Technology Assessment,
1984). It may be that fewer engineers will be required to prepare
designs, or to program and monitor robots or flexible manufacturing
systems. Much drafting and analysis will be computerized, as will a
great deal of documentation. The overall number of engineers
employed in this sector may therefore decline. Nevertheless, with
reductions of the work force in general, engineers will (in the
opinion of the panel) represent a higher percentage of the
manufacturing work force than they now do. Manufacturing will
become more engineering-intensive.
OCR for page 62
Page 62
The outlook for job creation in engineering is possibly better
than for production workers. There is now a noticeable call for
more manufacturing engineers, a discipline traditionally associated
with the "smokestack industries." Contemporary manufacturing
engineers will have an important role to play in the application of
computers and advanced technology to the manufacturing process.
Many engineers will enter the service sector to join consulting
firms offering turnkey systems and system start-up and/or operating
services.
Perceptions of jobs gained and lost, and of the quality of
engineering work in the automated environment, will affect the
choices of young people regarding engineering study. Environmental
issues influenced students' choice of disciplines as well as the
nature and directions of the practice of that discipline. If
technological unemployment is to be the next "environmental-type"
issue for engineering, similar impacts on choices and directions
may occur.
Roles and Responsibility for
Intervention
Just as in the case of environmental problems in the 1970s, the
government may have to intervene (directly or indirectly) in labor
displacement if the application of technology is to proceed
smoothly. This seems essential from a pragmatic as well as
human-welfare point of view: Society will have to make provisions
for severe technological unemployment to avoid a modern recurrence
of the Luddite phenomenon. Industry is not and cannot be
responsible for the social consequences of decisions taken to
ensure survival in the marketplace—although many companies do
attempt to take such consequences into account in their business
behavior. The formula that is frequently expressed (initially by
James Baker, vice-president of General Electric) is "automate,
liquidate, or emigrate," with companies threatening to take
production offshore if workers and unions will not accept
automation. Workers have already tried to prevent both by lawsuits,
strikes, and other means; efforts to resist may intensify in the
future. Industry and government ought to attempt to find
alternatives and solutions in the meantime. There are surely more
choices than to automate, liquidate, or emigrate. Carefully
thought-out social and technological interventions are needed.
What is the responsibility of the engineering profession in
coping with this problem? It should recognize that technological
unemployment is a major challenge for the present and the immediate
future but also insist that it is not the responsibility of
engineers to meet that challenge alone. In fact, it is largely a
social problem, one with strong
OCR for page 63
Page 63
political implications. Engineering professional societies
should be aware of the problem, and engineering education should be
structured to inculcate in the student the knowledge that
engineering is a social enterprise, having social ramifications,
and that the innovation and management of complex technical systems
often involve considerations of this sort. Here is, in fact, an
instance of the value of the kind of "socialization" of engineering
education that was urged earlier in the report. In the end, it may
be possible for engineers to devise means to automate that
accomplish the goal of increased productivity while being sensitive
to human interactions and consequences.
Society's Responsibility to the
Engineering Profession
Nearly all of the report thus far has emphasized the
responsibility of the engineering profession to society in general
and the degree of success it has had in meeting those
responsibilities. This emphasis is an appropriate one; the
profession exists to serve the needs of the larger community.
However, it is also important to consider the responsibility that
society has to maintain conditions necessary for the continued
health of the engineering profession. "Society," in this instance,
includes all those entities that benefit from the engineering
function—whether they be government, industries, corporations,
or individual consumers.
Two primary considerations emerge in this context. The first is
the question of whether engineers in general are adequately
compensated for their services. An argument can easily be made that
compensation of engineers is not commensurate with the value of
their contribution to society. The panel believes that the economic
productivity of engineers, compared with that of other
professionals such as lawyers and financial managers, for example,
is high. Yet an informal comparison of incomes shows a great
disparity between engineers and those groups. The problem is not at
the entry level; beginning engineers earn salaries that are among
the highest in any professional grouping (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1983). It occurs, instead, throughout the middle and
later years in the career path—years in which other
professionals can expect to reap the rewards (in financial terms)
of their experience and seniority. Inadequate compensation for
mid-career engineers in academia produces "salary compression,"
which in turn helps to drive some engineering faculty out of
teaching. In industry, it produces a virtual flight of experienced
engineers out of technical work and into engineering management,
and even into nonengineering fields (Guterl, 1984). This problem is
deeply rooted in the nature of our economy and
OCR for page 64
Page 64
its system of rewards. It is also one that would be extremely
difficult (and expensive) to solve. However, a report on the
subject of engineers vis-à-vis society would be remiss if it
did not at least point out the problem.
The second major issue regarding society's responsibility to
engineers relates to the government demand patterns discussed
earlier. Although the engineering profession has shown considerable
flexibility in responding to past shifts in government demand, the
ability of the profession to meet those needs is only one side of
the picture. On the other side, considerable hardship is entailed
for many engineers in the process—especially for the most
experienced engineers. Massive layoffs in defense industries such
as aerospace, for example, inevitably put many individuals out of
work for long periods of time. Viewing the matter strictly in
investment terms, the panel believes that a considerable
inefficiency in the use of the nation's technical resources is
involved.
Given the rapidity with which government demand can change, and
the scale of change involved, it does not seem appropriate to rely
completely on the engineering profession to make the great
adjustments necessary to meet those demands. The federal government
should consider the possibility of providing some form of support
network for engineers in industries affected by shifts in program
funding. Such a network could include as components retraining
programs, compensation packages, and even professional relocation.
If similar support is extended to manufacturing workers in changing
industries such as the automobile industry, it makes sense to
conserve the even more valuable resource embodied in engineering
talent, which represents a substantial investment of public funds
for engineering education and on-the-job training acquired in
government-related development programs.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
engineering students
Items in cart [1]
