Dear All

There are two sets of issues going on in this thread. One has to do with views of life on different planets. There is room for debate on some of these issues and I may yet post a note on some of these issues.

The other set of issues has to do with diverging representations of engineering and engineering education as against human-centered design. Terry is suggesting that Don's view of engineering and engineering education are obsolete. On the face of it, I'd have to disagree. Whatever Terry thinks of engineering and however he represents engineering skills and practices, he works in a design school and does research in social programs and business. Don has been a senior professor of engineering at some of the little universities he mentioned, and he worked with designers and engineers in such companies as Apple, Hewlett Packard, and others. Given his still-current working life in the fields of engineering and engineering education, as well as his working life in design and design education, Don speaks on the basis of direct, high-level experience. 

Both Terry and Don were trained as engineers, and both hold professional association memberships. However, Don is also a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and election to the academy is one of the highest professional honors that the field can bestow on an engineer. Given Don's projects and academy commitments, Don speaks from current experience. In contrast, Terry's view of engineering and engineering education are decidedly more theoretical. Don has far greater experience as a working engineer and a senior member of the engineering profession. I'm willing to agree that Terry has some interesting ideas on what ought to be, but Don describes the situation as it is.

As it is, I'm not entering this thread to defend Don or his views. I'm raising a question about the basis on which we attend to arguments. One of the odd things about this list is the occasional idea that everyone is equally well qualified to speak on every subject. This is not so. Every has the right to speak on any subject that it pleases them to address, but this does not mean they with with equal expertise. If this were simply an case of logic or research results, there might be greater room for disagreement on represent the state of the engineering field. In this case, we are speaking of argument from the understanding that comes from experience. Don has far greater experience. 

As someone who occasionally works with engineers and engineering professors, I eavesdrop on the issues that concern them. While there is no unanimity on all issues, senior people in the engineering field express the concerns to which Don gives voice. I have not often heard the idealized picture of a humanistic, socially aware field that Terry portrays. Do such kinds of engineers exist? Absolutely. Such engineers as Buckminster Fuller, Henry Petroski, -- or Donald Norman -- attend to these issues. I meet some here at Swinburne, too. Nevertheless, these kinds of people are not common. If they were, it would be a different world.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I can't see that Don's view of engineering or engineering education is out-dated or over-simplified.

Cheers on Republic Day for India, and Australia Day here in Melbourne, 

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design

--

Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

i may not always agree with don, but i think he has a point about distinguishing engineering and human-centered approaches to design, especially in the methods either uses.

(p.s.  I agree with Klaus's views more often than may be apparent in our occasional debates on this list.)