Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1845706
T. Tunc, Gokhan Tunc
For the first half of the twentieth century, Thompson-Starrett and Co., a New York-based American engineering, construction, and contracting firm, dominated the building scene. In operation between 1899 and 1968, it was a leader in skyscraper construction and large-scale projects, and literally built the New York skyline. It designed and constructed the tallest skyscraper of the era, the Woolworth Building, as well as other iconic Manhattan structures such as the Equitable Building, the American Stock Exchange, the New York Municipal Building, and the Claridge, Algonquin, Roosevelt, St. Regis, and Waldorf-Astoria Hotels. A formidable pioneering force in structural engineering a hundred years ago, Thompson-Starrett is, by and large, forgotten today, especially its post-World War II ventures in Turkey, such as the Sarıyar Dam and the Çeşme Beach Houses, a luxury beachfront cooperative located in Ilıca, Izmir. However, what would prompt the engineering firm responsible for the Woolworth Building to take on the road and utility construction and project management of a Turkish summer resort? The answer lies in Cold War geopolitics and booming private enterprise, both of which, in the 1950s, converged in Turkey, relied on American engineering, and involved a complex process of Americanization.
20世纪上半叶，总部位于纽约的美国工程、建筑和承包公司Thompson Starrett and Co.主导了建筑业。在1899年至1968年的运营中，它是摩天大楼建设和大型项目的领导者，并真正建造了纽约的天际线。它设计并建造了那个时代最高的摩天大楼伍尔沃斯大厦，以及其他标志性的曼哈顿建筑，如Equitable大厦、美国证券交易所、纽约市政大厦，以及Claridge、Algonquin、Roosevelt、St.Regis和Waldorf Astoria酒店。Thompson Starrett是一百年前结构工程领域的一支强大的先锋力量，今天基本上被遗忘了，尤其是它在二战后在土耳其的合资企业，如Sarıyar大坝和Çeşme Beach Houses，这是一家位于伊兹密尔Ilıca的豪华海滨合作社。然而，是什么促使负责伍尔沃斯大厦的工程公司承担土耳其避暑胜地的道路和公用事业建设以及项目管理？答案在于冷战时期的地缘政治和蓬勃发展的私营企业，这两者在20世纪50年代都融合在土耳其，依赖美国工程，并涉及复杂的美国化过程。
{"title":"Constructing Containment: Thompson-Starrett, the Çeşme Beach Houses, and the Geopolitics of American Engineering in Cold War Turkey","authors":"T. Tunc, Gokhan Tunc","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1845706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1845706","url":null,"abstract":"For the first half of the twentieth century, Thompson-Starrett and Co., a New York-based American engineering, construction, and contracting firm, dominated the building scene. In operation between 1899 and 1968, it was a leader in skyscraper construction and large-scale projects, and literally built the New York skyline. It designed and constructed the tallest skyscraper of the era, the Woolworth Building, as well as other iconic Manhattan structures such as the Equitable Building, the American Stock Exchange, the New York Municipal Building, and the Claridge, Algonquin, Roosevelt, St. Regis, and Waldorf-Astoria Hotels. A formidable pioneering force in structural engineering a hundred years ago, Thompson-Starrett is, by and large, forgotten today, especially its post-World War II ventures in Turkey, such as the Sarıyar Dam and the Çeşme Beach Houses, a luxury beachfront cooperative located in Ilıca, Izmir. However, what would prompt the engineering firm responsible for the Woolworth Building to take on the road and utility construction and project management of a Turkish summer resort? The answer lies in Cold War geopolitics and booming private enterprise, both of which, in the 1950s, converged in Turkey, relied on American engineering, and involved a complex process of Americanization.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"195 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1845706","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43088476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-03DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1800045
K. Beddoes
In 2019, Engineering Studies published our first special issue on men and masculinities in engineering.1 With this year’s special issueonexclusionand inclusion inengineeringeducation, we continue to highlight scholarship that presents innovative insights on the cultures and norms of engineering (education). The three articles in this issue take up questions of who is excluded, who is included, and how those processes happen. Using ethnography, interviews, and document analysis, this collection of articles examines current discourses, policies, and practices that (re)produce exclusion and inclusion in engineering education programs in the United States. The first two articles identify exclusionary mechanisms and norms in the imaginary of who can do engineering and who the ideal engineer is. In ‘Anyone, But Not Everyone: Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Claims ofWho Can Do Engineering’, Jacqueline Rohde, Derrick J. Satterfield, Miguel Rodriguez, Allison Godwin, Geoff Potvin, Lisa Benson, and Adam Kirn examine ‘students’ claims about who can become an engineer and what it takes in engineering culture to be successful.’ In their interviewswith engineering students from four universities, they identified a paradox. The students espoused a belief that anyone could do engineering, but only if they possessed particular traits, such as a passion for engineering and an engineering mindset. The authors connect the students’ responses to the discursive resources of the American Dream and engineering meritocracy, concluding that although the students’ discourses aboutwhocandoengineeringmayappear inclusive, they are actually exclusionary for those without particular traits. In ‘The Making of “Ideal” Electrical and Computer Engineers: A Departmental Document Analysis’, Rachel E. Friedensen, Sarah Rodriguez, and Erin Doran used document analysis methods to examine departmental messaging about the normative identity of electrical and computer engineering students at one university. They found that the departmental texts and images, such as strategic plans, newsletters, andABET self-study reports, paint the picture of an ideal electrical and computer engineer who performs technical competence, is publicly recognized for that, andwhose interest is taken for granted.While other abilities, such as understanding societal and environmental impacts of engineering, arementioned, they are not given space in the curriculum. Additionally, the ideal engineer featured in the documents is a member of a dominant group who can manage individuals from diverse backgrounds. This narrow image of the ideal engineer is problematic because it may serve to exclude students who do not see themselves reflected in that imaginary. The authors identify recommendations for how departments canmake their messagingmore inclusive. The third article, ‘Transformation and Stasis: An Exploration of LGBTQA Students Prefiguring the Social Practices of Engineering for Greater Inclusivity’ looks inste
{"title":"Guest Editorial – Exclusion and Inclusion in U.S. Engineering Education","authors":"K. Beddoes","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1800045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1800045","url":null,"abstract":"In 2019, Engineering Studies published our first special issue on men and masculinities in engineering.1 With this year’s special issueonexclusionand inclusion inengineeringeducation, we continue to highlight scholarship that presents innovative insights on the cultures and norms of engineering (education). The three articles in this issue take up questions of who is excluded, who is included, and how those processes happen. Using ethnography, interviews, and document analysis, this collection of articles examines current discourses, policies, and practices that (re)produce exclusion and inclusion in engineering education programs in the United States. The first two articles identify exclusionary mechanisms and norms in the imaginary of who can do engineering and who the ideal engineer is. In ‘Anyone, But Not Everyone: Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Claims ofWho Can Do Engineering’, Jacqueline Rohde, Derrick J. Satterfield, Miguel Rodriguez, Allison Godwin, Geoff Potvin, Lisa Benson, and Adam Kirn examine ‘students’ claims about who can become an engineer and what it takes in engineering culture to be successful.’ In their interviewswith engineering students from four universities, they identified a paradox. The students espoused a belief that anyone could do engineering, but only if they possessed particular traits, such as a passion for engineering and an engineering mindset. The authors connect the students’ responses to the discursive resources of the American Dream and engineering meritocracy, concluding that although the students’ discourses aboutwhocandoengineeringmayappear inclusive, they are actually exclusionary for those without particular traits. In ‘The Making of “Ideal” Electrical and Computer Engineers: A Departmental Document Analysis’, Rachel E. Friedensen, Sarah Rodriguez, and Erin Doran used document analysis methods to examine departmental messaging about the normative identity of electrical and computer engineering students at one university. They found that the departmental texts and images, such as strategic plans, newsletters, andABET self-study reports, paint the picture of an ideal electrical and computer engineer who performs technical competence, is publicly recognized for that, andwhose interest is taken for granted.While other abilities, such as understanding societal and environmental impacts of engineering, arementioned, they are not given space in the curriculum. Additionally, the ideal engineer featured in the documents is a member of a dominant group who can manage individuals from diverse backgrounds. This narrow image of the ideal engineer is problematic because it may serve to exclude students who do not see themselves reflected in that imaginary. The authors identify recommendations for how departments canmake their messagingmore inclusive. The third article, ‘Transformation and Stasis: An Exploration of LGBTQA Students Prefiguring the Social Practices of Engineering for Greater Inclusivity’ looks inste","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"79 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1800045","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44908948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-03DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1795182
Rachel E. Friedensen, Sarah L. Rodriguez, E. Doran
This article uses document analysis to explore departmental messaging about electrical and computer engineering identity development for undergraduate students at an American research university in the Midwest. We found that these texts collectively produce an image of the ‘ideal’ electrical and computer engineer. This image depicts ‘ideal’ electrical and computer engineers as performing technical competence, being recognized for high-quality performance, and being well-rounded as well as an effective member/leader of diverse teams. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
{"title":"The Making of ‘Ideal’ Electrical and Computer Engineers: A Departmental Document Analysis","authors":"Rachel E. Friedensen, Sarah L. Rodriguez, E. Doran","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1795182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1795182","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses document analysis to explore departmental messaging about electrical and computer engineering identity development for undergraduate students at an American research university in the Midwest. We found that these texts collectively produce an image of the ‘ideal’ electrical and computer engineer. This image depicts ‘ideal’ electrical and computer engineers as performing technical competence, being recognized for high-quality performance, and being well-rounded as well as an effective member/leader of diverse teams. Implications for research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"104 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1795182","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43533395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-03DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1801694
Joanna Weidler-Lewis
The field of engineering continues to suffer from the underrepresentation of non-dominant groups despite concerted efforts towards change, particularly with respect to increasing women’s participation in the field. One way transformation in disciplines happens is through learning and the co-constitution of individuals and practices; as new students become engineers, they shape and transform the practice. In this article, I explore if and how a group of students are transforming the field of engineering through a process of prefiguration to be more inclusive of sexual orientation with the view that gender and sexual orientation intersect in meaningful ways. Based on ethnographic data and qualitative interviews, my findings suggest that students are able to change some aspects of engineering practice related to sexual identity, but that these changes have yet to impact the experience of gendered inequity. Despite increased recognition of sexual orientation in engineering, women continue to experience discrimination that men do not. Rather than remain defeatist in attempts to reach gender parity in the field, I conclude that prefiguration offers hope that it could be otherwise.
{"title":"Transformation and Stasis: An Exploration of LGBTQA Students Prefiguring the Social Practices of Engineering for Greater Inclusivity","authors":"Joanna Weidler-Lewis","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1801694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1801694","url":null,"abstract":"The field of engineering continues to suffer from the underrepresentation of non-dominant groups despite concerted efforts towards change, particularly with respect to increasing women’s participation in the field. One way transformation in disciplines happens is through learning and the co-constitution of individuals and practices; as new students become engineers, they shape and transform the practice. In this article, I explore if and how a group of students are transforming the field of engineering through a process of prefiguration to be more inclusive of sexual orientation with the view that gender and sexual orientation intersect in meaningful ways. Based on ethnographic data and qualitative interviews, my findings suggest that students are able to change some aspects of engineering practice related to sexual identity, but that these changes have yet to impact the experience of gendered inequity. Despite increased recognition of sexual orientation in engineering, women continue to experience discrimination that men do not. Rather than remain defeatist in attempts to reach gender parity in the field, I conclude that prefiguration offers hope that it could be otherwise.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"127 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1801694","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46427744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-03DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1795181
Jacqueline Rohde, D. Satterfield, Miguel Rodriguez, Allison Godwin, G. Potvin, L. Benson, Adam Kirn
This paper examines students’ claims about who can become an engineer and what it takes in engineering culture to be successful. Through longitudinal interviews with 20 undergraduate engineering students, we found that participants’ descriptions of who can ‘do’ engineering were paradoxical. Participants simultaneously maintained that ‘anyone’ could do engineering and that individuals must also possess certain characteristics to become engineers. This study connects these students’ responses to broader conversations regarding social advancement and meritocratic values within U.S. engineering culture. Participants’ responses reflect a definition of engineering that may on the surface appear open but is in practice exclusionary to individuals who do not conform to certain expectations. While many discussions of culture in engineering focus on the values and practices of ‘core’ members such as faculty or practicing engineers, it is imperative to consider the understandings that students bring to their university and enact while being enculturated into the engineering profession. This study contributes to the literature by examining the ways cultural values are upheld and reified among undergraduate engineering students.
{"title":"Anyone, but not Everyone: Undergraduate Engineering Students’ Claims of Who Can Do Engineering","authors":"Jacqueline Rohde, D. Satterfield, Miguel Rodriguez, Allison Godwin, G. Potvin, L. Benson, Adam Kirn","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1795181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1795181","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines students’ claims about who can become an engineer and what it takes in engineering culture to be successful. Through longitudinal interviews with 20 undergraduate engineering students, we found that participants’ descriptions of who can ‘do’ engineering were paradoxical. Participants simultaneously maintained that ‘anyone’ could do engineering and that individuals must also possess certain characteristics to become engineers. This study connects these students’ responses to broader conversations regarding social advancement and meritocratic values within U.S. engineering culture. Participants’ responses reflect a definition of engineering that may on the surface appear open but is in practice exclusionary to individuals who do not conform to certain expectations. While many discussions of culture in engineering focus on the values and practices of ‘core’ members such as faculty or practicing engineers, it is imperative to consider the understandings that students bring to their university and enact while being enculturated into the engineering profession. This study contributes to the literature by examining the ways cultural values are upheld and reified among undergraduate engineering students.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"82 - 103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1795181","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41498891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2019.1699931
P. Robbins, D. Wield, Gordon Wilson
ABSTRACT The paper aims to build understanding of the recent growth of interest in engineering for international development as an emerging focus of new knowledge, practice, and community development. In the paper, we create a borderlands approach to studying the activities referred to as engineering for development and development engineering. These activities take place in ‘borderland’ spaces where new approaches are being tried out through creative engagement of networks and communities willing to integrate social as well as technical knowledge and practice. We analyze four cases, selected as exemplars of engineering for development, from a large data set of case studies to demonstrate the socio-economic impact of research. We found evidence of important and original engineering, which showed paradigmatic shifts in engineering knowledge and practice. There was ambivalence inside the engineering community about engineering quality, mixing pride in the building of new paradigms with modesty about whether new knowledge and practices were ‘real’ engineering. These findings provide evidence that engineering aimed at global development offers an exciting new ‘borderlands’ approach to engineering that warrants further study.
{"title":"Engineering for Development as Borderland Activity","authors":"P. Robbins, D. Wield, Gordon Wilson","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2019.1699931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2019.1699931","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper aims to build understanding of the recent growth of interest in engineering for international development as an emerging focus of new knowledge, practice, and community development. In the paper, we create a borderlands approach to studying the activities referred to as engineering for development and development engineering. These activities take place in ‘borderland’ spaces where new approaches are being tried out through creative engagement of networks and communities willing to integrate social as well as technical knowledge and practice. We analyze four cases, selected as exemplars of engineering for development, from a large data set of case studies to demonstrate the socio-economic impact of research. We found evidence of important and original engineering, which showed paradigmatic shifts in engineering knowledge and practice. There was ambivalence inside the engineering community about engineering quality, mixing pride in the building of new paradigms with modesty about whether new knowledge and practices were ‘real’ engineering. These findings provide evidence that engineering aimed at global development offers an exciting new ‘borderlands’ approach to engineering that warrants further study.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"58 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2019.1699931","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41990566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1751397
Cyrus C. M. Mody
This issue of Engineering Studies comes out during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this editorial is being written from home under ‘lockdown’ conditions. Right now, it is too early to know what the long-term consequences of the pandemic will be. In the short term, our readers and authors should be patient as most of our editors and reviewers have had to prioritize matters other than journal work. There will be some delays. Engineering Studies is not essential infrastructure, and our articles are not going to provide a way out of this crisis. Some things – staying safe and healthy, looking after loved ones, helping friends and students who are overwhelmed – are always going to be more important than academic publishing, but especially right now. We have to put things in perspective. But putting things into perspective alsomeans reflecting on howour expertise can help, in small ways and large. This crisis has revealed much about engineers and engineering, and I predict that studies of the coronavirus pandemicwill be a staple of this and other journals for some time. We have seen engineers rise to the occasion: in, for instance, helping to rapidly buildmakeshift hospitals and retooling factories tomanufacture ventilators, masks, and hand sanitizer. We’ve also seen that some engineered infrastructures have adapted incredibly well. The migration of many workplaces on-line hasn’t gone perfectly, but it’s remarkable that it could be done at all. At the same time, the crisis has shown us how much engineers have failed to take into account. Take the global passenger aviation system: it is a sociotechnical marvel made up of airplanes, airports, traffic control technologies, electronic booking systems, security systems, customs inspection practices, pilots and crews and schools for training them, etc., etc. Normally we hardly perceive its slip-ups, nor its incremental evolution. Yet an historical view shows that passenger aviation has occasionally had to evolve quickly and under duress because of revelations that its engineers failed to consider – or, even worse, considered but failed to act upon – fundamental flaws. Many aviation experts of the mid-1960s, for instance, thought that supersonic transports were the future of their industry – without, apparently, understanding that people wouldn’t tolerate continual sound pollution from sonic booms.1 The events of 11 September 2001 revealed that the passenger aviation system wasn’t configured to prevent that style of attack. Over the past year, it has become more obvious to more people that passenger aviation is unsustainable in the face of both peak oil and climate change. The growing response, especially in some parts of Europe, has been a growing sense of ‘flight shame’ and hence reduced air travel – a turn that the passenger aviation system’s designers also did not anticipate. Now, over the course of March 2020, it has emerged that passenger aviation was not constructed to withstand a global pandemic. No doubt
{"title":"Normal Science in the Time of Corona","authors":"Cyrus C. M. Mody","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1751397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1751397","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of Engineering Studies comes out during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this editorial is being written from home under ‘lockdown’ conditions. Right now, it is too early to know what the long-term consequences of the pandemic will be. In the short term, our readers and authors should be patient as most of our editors and reviewers have had to prioritize matters other than journal work. There will be some delays. Engineering Studies is not essential infrastructure, and our articles are not going to provide a way out of this crisis. Some things – staying safe and healthy, looking after loved ones, helping friends and students who are overwhelmed – are always going to be more important than academic publishing, but especially right now. We have to put things in perspective. But putting things into perspective alsomeans reflecting on howour expertise can help, in small ways and large. This crisis has revealed much about engineers and engineering, and I predict that studies of the coronavirus pandemicwill be a staple of this and other journals for some time. We have seen engineers rise to the occasion: in, for instance, helping to rapidly buildmakeshift hospitals and retooling factories tomanufacture ventilators, masks, and hand sanitizer. We’ve also seen that some engineered infrastructures have adapted incredibly well. The migration of many workplaces on-line hasn’t gone perfectly, but it’s remarkable that it could be done at all. At the same time, the crisis has shown us how much engineers have failed to take into account. Take the global passenger aviation system: it is a sociotechnical marvel made up of airplanes, airports, traffic control technologies, electronic booking systems, security systems, customs inspection practices, pilots and crews and schools for training them, etc., etc. Normally we hardly perceive its slip-ups, nor its incremental evolution. Yet an historical view shows that passenger aviation has occasionally had to evolve quickly and under duress because of revelations that its engineers failed to consider – or, even worse, considered but failed to act upon – fundamental flaws. Many aviation experts of the mid-1960s, for instance, thought that supersonic transports were the future of their industry – without, apparently, understanding that people wouldn’t tolerate continual sound pollution from sonic booms.1 The events of 11 September 2001 revealed that the passenger aviation system wasn’t configured to prevent that style of attack. Over the past year, it has become more obvious to more people that passenger aviation is unsustainable in the face of both peak oil and climate change. The growing response, especially in some parts of Europe, has been a growing sense of ‘flight shame’ and hence reduced air travel – a turn that the passenger aviation system’s designers also did not anticipate. Now, over the course of March 2020, it has emerged that passenger aviation was not constructed to withstand a global pandemic. No doubt ","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"1 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1751397","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42501327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2019.1699930
Nan Wang
ABSTRACT The Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) is one of the most important engineering institutions for Chinese engineers. The formal establishment of CAE, from its original conception in 1978 to its final birth in 1994, took almost 20 years. At present it has been in existence for two decades. Both the former decades-long emergence and the latter decades-long operation of CAE can be interpreted in terms of an interaction between expertise and politics. To understand the CAE’s origins and operation, this paper will first examine how ‘engineering’ and ‘engineer’ have slightly different meanings in the historical and cultural context of China than in the West. Then it will focus on the decades-long creation of the CAE. In the 1970s, the proposal for a Chinese engineering academy was initiated by scientist and engineer members of the Chinese Academy of Science, as a result of both domestic and international influences. Through the 1980s and 90s, a few politicians jointly with those scientists and engineers made a crucial contribution to the founding of the CAE. Finally, the article offers an account of CAE’s structure and operation during the first twenty years of its existence.
{"title":"Origin and Operation of the Chinese Academy of Engineering: An Interaction between Expertise and Politics","authors":"Nan Wang","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2019.1699930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2019.1699930","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) is one of the most important engineering institutions for Chinese engineers. The formal establishment of CAE, from its original conception in 1978 to its final birth in 1994, took almost 20 years. At present it has been in existence for two decades. Both the former decades-long emergence and the latter decades-long operation of CAE can be interpreted in terms of an interaction between expertise and politics. To understand the CAE’s origins and operation, this paper will first examine how ‘engineering’ and ‘engineer’ have slightly different meanings in the historical and cultural context of China than in the West. Then it will focus on the decades-long creation of the CAE. In the 1970s, the proposal for a Chinese engineering academy was initiated by scientist and engineer members of the Chinese Academy of Science, as a result of both domestic and international influences. Through the 1980s and 90s, a few politicians jointly with those scientists and engineers made a crucial contribution to the founding of the CAE. Finally, the article offers an account of CAE’s structure and operation during the first twenty years of its existence.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"39 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2019.1699930","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44932531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282
Charles Anthony Bates, Christian Clausen
ABSTRACT This paper demonstrates the coordinating roles played by decision-making concepts such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in industrial engineering practice, where technology development is increasingly complex, involving diverse stakeholders, engineering tools and sociotechnical objects. Such distributed practices demand coordinated efforts across specialized units with diverging interests and perspectives on how development is being defined and accounted for. Nonetheless, coordinating roles of decision-making concepts in industry have largely escaped the recent attention of scholars within engineering studies and Science and Technology Studies. This paper offers an auto-ethnographic study of how the TRL figure of merit was deployed in an industrial organization. We ask how TRL is made to perform as an effective coordinating device. Following the TRL device across project meetings, we consider the three moments of a calculative device as defined by Michel Callon and Fabian Muniesa, to illuminate how TRL serves to circumscribe, configure and coordinate encounters and activity in a technology development project, as managed by the corresponding author. Contrary to linear and mechanistic understandings within management thinking, we show TRL is more than a figure of merit for measuring progress. In the hands of skilled practitioners, TRL also performs as a centralized calculating device to orchestrate distributed activities.
{"title":"Engineering Readiness: How the TRL Figure of Merit Coordinates Technology Development","authors":"Charles Anthony Bates, Christian Clausen","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper demonstrates the coordinating roles played by decision-making concepts such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in industrial engineering practice, where technology development is increasingly complex, involving diverse stakeholders, engineering tools and sociotechnical objects. Such distributed practices demand coordinated efforts across specialized units with diverging interests and perspectives on how development is being defined and accounted for. Nonetheless, coordinating roles of decision-making concepts in industry have largely escaped the recent attention of scholars within engineering studies and Science and Technology Studies. This paper offers an auto-ethnographic study of how the TRL figure of merit was deployed in an industrial organization. We ask how TRL is made to perform as an effective coordinating device. Following the TRL device across project meetings, we consider the three moments of a calculative device as defined by Michel Callon and Fabian Muniesa, to illuminate how TRL serves to circumscribe, configure and coordinate encounters and activity in a technology development project, as managed by the corresponding author. Contrary to linear and mechanistic understandings within management thinking, we show TRL is more than a figure of merit for measuring progress. In the hands of skilled practitioners, TRL also performs as a centralized calculating device to orchestrate distributed activities.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"38 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1728282","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48767197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2020.1746488
{"title":"Thank You to 2019 Reviewers","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1746488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1746488","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"8 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1746488","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42305648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：