Designing the Identities of Engineers

Abstract

Abstract:In 2007 Gary Downey, Juan Lucena and Carl Mitcham argued that a "key issue in ethics education for engineers concerns the relationship between the identity of the engineer and the responsibilities of engineering work". They suggested that "one methodological strategy for sorting out similarities and differences in engineers' identities is to ask the 'who' question. Who is an engineer? Or, what makes one an engineer?" (Downey, Lucena & Mitcham, 2007). This chapter explores these questions of who is an engineer and what makes one an engineer by examining how engineering and engineering technology students in Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) describe and differentiate themselves. DIT offers both 4-year engineering degrees (that are equivalent to the educational standard required for professional status) and 3-year degrees in engineering technology. Annually DIT graduates the largest combined number of engineering and engineering technology majors in the country. We present results that show that there is no distinct sense of identity for a technologist. For faculty as well as engineering students and engineering technology students, design is perceived as a key differentiating activity that separates the engineer from the engineering technologist. Paradoxically, while all students chose DIT based on its reputation and practical focus, it is engineering technology students who indicated they are prepared for the 'real world' as they near graduation. Results also show, in terms of their own responses, that engineering and engineering technology students have fairly consistent views of their education and preparation for the workforce.

Social- and self-perception of designers’ professional identity

“…Throughout we use the term 'designer' to refer to design practitioners with a formal design engineering education. This definition reflects the research sample as well as accounting for the context and community of practice relevant to professional identification (Baumeister & Muraven, 1996;Murphy et al, 2015). The results show substantial differences in the perspectives of professors and managers with respect to designers, particularly surrounding the prioritisation of creativity verses responsibility and customer service.…”

“…The general construction of Professional Identity (PI) formally begins during higher education. Consequently, professors play a pivotal role in the initial development of their students' PI, based on their teaching of the norms they believe a student should adhere to, reinforced via academic assessment (Murphy, Chance, and Conlon 2015). As a result, students tend to align their perception of a profession with those of their professors (Trede, 2012a).…”

A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics

“…The value of Jamison et al's (2014) tripartite analysis of engineering education is that it allows us to link the different paradigms of engineering education to different conceptions of what it means to be an engineer, thus positing a generative view of engineering identity. By engineering identity is understood who counts as an engineer, what does performing the role of an engineer entail and what are the responsibilities of engineers (Murphy et al, 2015).…”

What Does Hidden Curriculum in Engineering Look Like and How Can It Be Explored?

“…Recent literature has indicated that when engineering educators and students fail to recognize the persistence of a cultural influence in engineering education, undesirable consequences can result [51]. For example, a lack of culturally-responsive and holistic curricular content may limit students' understanding of their future professional roles [52], which may hinder students' sense of "ownership" (i.e., self-efficacy) of their professional actions and beliefs [53], [54]. In addition, a lack of social capital for underrepresented groups in engineering can lead to challenging university transitions [55], which may influence high attrition rates [56].…”