Specialization: A Detriment to Problem Conception

Abstract

Specialization is an agent of separation, both between competing specialists and between technology and society. Specialization is not an agent of integration. In the problem conception phase of the engineering design process, the emphasis must be on formulating and developing the questions that will frame the ultimate design solution. Using specialists in this phase often leads to biased questions based on the specialists’ areas of expertise. Rather, what is needed is a suspension of commitment to particular solutions and to ask questions without preconceived biases. This study takes a critical look at engineering education as now practiced versus the practice of 40 years ago and concludes with a recommendation for more broadly educating future engineers.

Keywords

design specialization curriculum engineering sciences engineering education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amadei, B. , & Sandekian, R. ( 2010). Model of integrting humanitarian development into engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineerin Education and Practice, 136, 84-92.

Anderson, P.W. ( 1972). More is different. Science, 177, 393-396.

Cross, N. ( 1994). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Dym, C.L. , & Little, P. ( 2004). Engineering design: A project-based introduction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dyson, F.J. ( 2006). The scientist as rebel. New York: New York Review of Books.

Gidel, T. , Gautier, R. , & Duchamp, R. ( 2005). Decision-making framework methodology: an original approach to project risk management in new product design. Journal of Engineering Design, 16, 1-23.

Kranzberg, M. ( 1988). Interdependence of scientific and technological information and its relation to public decision making. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 495, 29-39.

Kuhn, T.S. ( 1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Laughlin, R.B. , & Pines, D. ( 2000). The theory of everything. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 28-31.

10.

Lehrer, J. ( 2008). Proust was a neuroscientist. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

11.

Mann, C.R. , & Joint Committee on Engineering Education of the National Engineering Societies. (1918). A study of engineering education: Prepared for the Joint Committee on Engineering Education of the National Engineering Societies. New York, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching .

12.

National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

13.

National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

14.

National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Engineering Grand Challenges. Project information. Retrieved from http://www.8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=48704

15.

Scholars, G.C. ( 2009). NAE grand challenges scholars. Retrieved from http://grandchallengescholars.org/

16.

Siller, T.J. , & Johnson, G.R. ( 2009). Management structure designed to facilitate changing engineering curricula. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25, 1218-1225.

17.

Spenser, J. ( 2008). The airplane: How ideas gave us wings. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

18.

University of Toronto. (2010). The Center for Technology and Social Development. Retrieved from http://ctsd.utoronto.ca/index.html

19.

Voland, G. ( 1999). Engineering by design. Reading, MA : Adison-Wesley.

20.

Volkema, R.J. ( 1983). Problem formulation in planning and design. Management Science, 29, 639-652.

21.

Winn, C.B. ( 2008). A history of the Mechanical Engineering Department At Colorado State University: 1870 to 2004. Greeley, CO: Anvil Graphics.