General Engineering Introduction/ASEE Paper/Narrative Problem

The Narrative Problem

The current Engineering narratives are “Applied Science”, “Solve Problems”, “Make Things”, “Design“ and “Engineers help shape the Future.” Do these narratives work? How many kids say they want to be an engineer? Who is they as in “They just created a new wire with carbon and no metal or copper.” Only at community colleges do students declare an engineering major that:

can not pass an algebra placement test
want to move knobs up and down in a sound studio
already have some other undergraduate degree (like physics, or architecture)
are challenged in some way

Engineers live in a business to business world (B2B) where both clients and customers are other engineers. Doctors and lawyers interface with the public every day. The public has a strong narrative associated with most occupations. Engineering draws a blank.

Why aren't current narratives working? Look at their origin. The B2B world provides no ability to test narratives. Retaining freshman interested in engineering at four year schools is a different objective than explaining engineering to the public.

K-12 “Trust Science” Narrative Dominance

The US military preferred to work with physicists rather than engineers during WWII. Engineers belonged to unions, not societies. They were either super techs or tech managers. “Art and Practice” dominated the engineering profession. A deliberate decision to begin promoting Engineering Science was made during the creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF). This has been a success. Engineering undergrads now drop out to become physicists. Less prestigious colleges offer Physics instead of Engineering. Physics is cheaper, easier to staff and can survive the efficiency/assessment demands of modern accountability. This is reflected in GMAT scores engineers average around 590, science averages below social science at around 560.

The K-12 “trust science” narrative inspires education that discourages magic, establishes an understandable universe and promotes the “scientific process.” This narrative does create a public that votes for a pure research infrastructure. Changing this would be dangerous. The gap between a needed “creating scientist” narrative and the K-12 “trusting science” narrative has now fallen on the shoulders of engineering.

The Technology Narrative

Engineers face a real danger of becoming technologists. Engineering Technology programs fill a real need. They provide a career pathway between technology and engineering. They establish mutual respect. Unfortunately current engineering narratives blur the engineering/technician distinction.

To fight this, most colleges are either focused on engineering science or engineering technology. K-12 and community colleges have both. Most of the articulation problems between community colleges and four year institutions exist because of technology narrative problems. Four year institutions believe K-12 and community colleges don't implement the “create scientist” narrative, have to train technicians and thus cannot simultaneously support engineering science.

What is the technology narrative? The industrial arts, technician, technologist, certification, apprentice, master occupations can all be lumped into one narrative. “Do something for 15 years.” Become an expert. Experience creates expertise. This is not an engineering or “creating scientist” narrative.

Engineers do it first

The design requirements for an engineering narrative:

puts "inventing" in the right context
sandwich between “create scientist” and “technology” narratives
fit on a bumper sticker
archetypical guide for all engineering courses
strengthen context of existing engineering courses
foster engineering projects

The “Do it First” narrative emerged while sinking into the ugliness of “Design” and “Solve problems” narratives. It is the fruit of students suffering through process without relevance.

What is “it”?

It extends and matures through the group play to engulf “exploring.”
It values ignorance as much as experience and expertise.
It creates inspiration that can’t happen in education where the teacher says “Be like me.”
It sets the stage for an emphasis on repeatability and documentation.
It matures into design and engineering problem solving versus technician problem solving.
It can lead to the scientific narrative of theories, instruments and experiments

Asking the question “Who gets to do it first?” establishes the currency of engineering: RESPECT.

The full narrative is Play → Do it First → Design → Solve Problems.