The Professional Formation of a Contemporary … · Web viewThe Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy by YURI A. ALEXEICHENKO

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy

byYURI A. ALEXEICHENKO

WORKING PAPERS

Centre for Comparative Labour StudiesDepartment of SociologyUniversity of WarwickCOVENTRY CV4 7AL

Number 1

August 1995

£3.00

ISSN 1360-2020

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy PAGE i

CO NT E NT S

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 6

Analysing the nature of engineering: is the technocratic paradigm inevitable?

CHAPTER 2

Technocratic tendencies in professional education and socialisation: different patterns, similar outcomes?

CONCLUSION 22

REFERENCES 22

APPENDIX A 24

APPENDIX B 27

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy PAGE ii

Ab st rac tThe paper examines the process of becoming a professional engineer in different countries against a backdrop of the

global socio-technological, cultural and environmental contradictions of the modern age. The comparative focus of the paper is Britain and Belarus. It is suggested that the technocratic paradigm of professional mentality and culture which until quite recently used to be characteristic of most efficient engineers nowadays becomes increasingly incompatible with the progress of national economies and human civilization in general. The argumentation is developed to stress the urgent need for democratically-minded technical workers with a more rounded, interdisciplinary approach and integrated vision of technology-practice.

On the basis of original research evidence and published materials from analogous studies the roots and reasons for an apparent technocratic bias in engineering students’ consciousness are analysed. They are seen to be linked to the nature of the occupation, which appears to be similar across industrialised countries, and to the patterns of professional education and socialisation which are quite specific in diverse national contexts. These peculiarities in the formation of technical workers, determined by the historical differences in the timing and character of industrialisation, are argued to produce distinct Western and Soviet sub-types of technocracy. Both of them, however, equally hinder the process of democratisation in the engineering profession.

The possibilities, preconditions and principles of reforms in technical education and training aimed to achieve the required shift of paradigms in the professional mentality of future engineers are discussed.

Ackn o w l ed g emen tsThis dissertation could not have been completed without help and support of many people. I am deeply grateful to Rob

Flynn (Department of Sociology) and Chris March (Faculty of Engineering) from the University of Salford who heavily contributed to my research project by realising all the field work there. To Prof J.Flower and Prof D.Whitehouse at the Department of Engineering, University of Warwick I owe particular thanks for giving me access and creating a favourable atmosphere which made my interviews with their students a pleasure.

I would like to express special gratitude to Simon Clarke for his liberal and friendly style of supervision which has encouraged me and helped to activate my own analytical capabilities. I owe a great deal indeed to Richard Lampard who significantly assisted me in coping with the quantitative side of the research. Special thanks are due to Peter Fairbrother, Tony Elger, Ian Procter and other colleagues at the University of Warwick who helped me to keep my mind open.

Yuri Alexeichenko

T h e Au tho rYuri Alexeichenko was born in Gomel, Belarus, in 1965. He graduated from Gomel State University with a degree in

History and Social Sciences in 1987. From 1987-90 he taught in the Department of Political History and Politology of the Gomel Polytechnical Institute. Since 1990 he has been a postgraduate student in the Institute of Sociology of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences. He attended the ESRC/British Council/Soros Summer School for Soviet Sociologists at the University of Manchester in 1991, and spent the academic year 1993-4 in the Sociology Department at Warwick, where he held a British Council Scholarship, graduating with an MA in Sociology with distinction. In addition to his work on the professional training of engineers, Yuri has published on the consequences of Chernobyl, which is close to his home city of Gomel. Yuri is curently working as a freelance sociologist in Belarus. He can be contacted at Ul. Golovatskogo 21-60,

Gomel 246028 Belarus, telephone (7) 0232-572541.


The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy PAGE 3

I n t ro d uc t i o nThis dissertation presents some outcomes of a

research project devoted to the problems of the professional formation of future engineers within systems of higher technical education in Belarus and England, which I started in 1991. Since that time my sociological world-view and, consequently, the methodology of collecting, analysing and interpreting data have undergone a quite deep and painful evolution: the erosion of a positivist image of sociological knowledge has been followed by an obsession with a spirit of radical doubt over the adequacy and validity of any information about individual and society obtained by whatever methods. Indeed it is difficult to say at the moment whether this process has come to an end and equally to characterise my current research outlook more precisely and in more detail than by the single word ‘pluralism`.

This factor has shaped the mode of theoretical argumentation and the ways of presenting and analysing empirical materials employed in the dissertation which one might consider as too patchy, variegated and lacking articulated adherence to any particular sociological tradition. The other characteristic feature of the text is that it tends to provide more questions than answers, more hypotheses and presuppositions than theories or solid conclusions.

The latter stems not only from the peculiarities of the research approach but also from the nature of the research problem. The process of becoming professional (either in engineering or in any other occupation), the emergence and development of one’s professional mentality with the particular pattern of occupational values, norms, and preferences tending to define the professional and even the life path of an individual was never an easy subject to study.

Firstly, the researcher has to deal with the quite delicate inner sphere of human abilities, inclinations, interests and choices which are often not clearly understood even by their possessor. Secondly, because professional socialisation as an interaction between the unique inner world of a person and a range of socio-professional institutions and factors (which are quite specific in different societies) occurs in a fairly individual manner and, therefore, requires considerable discretion in making broad generalisations or universal conclusions in this area.

However, despite the problems and limitations involved one can hardly deny the importance of studies devoted to the formation of professional consciousness and culture of different occupational groups under contemporary conditions of global technological, socio-economic, geopolitical and ecological transformations and challenges. Profound research seems to be particularly essential in the case of such professional strata as engineers and scientists who play a very significant role in any modern society and who are able

substantially to influence the future development of their countries and of human civilization in general.

There is a vast range of arguments to prove the key role of engineering and science in modern life. We can look at the situation from the point of view of the Warwick University engineering undergraduates who argue mainly on the basis of common-sense and day-to-day experience that:

“Engineering has basically a critical role in society today… In the world around us there’s a very few things we can actually think of that has not come from an engineering process… Society now is basically engineered…”(2nd year electric and manufacturing systems engineering students)

We can draw upon the historical argumentation of Glover and Kelly who state that human beings are engineers by definition. From early ages onwards man is homo faber, the maker and doer, and it is no accident that historical epochs or periods are named after materials, artefacts or energy sources e.g. the Bronze Age, the Computer Age, the Atomic Age (Glover & Kelly 1987: 20-22).

Or we can enter the highly abstract domain of a distinguished social theorist who finds the scientist, technician and engineer among the figures central to the expert systems which are one of the most essential characteristics of the late modern age (Giddens 1991: 18-21).

Further argumentation on the issue, involving both a more detailed analysis of engineering’s impact on the contemporary process of technological change and socio-economic globalisation and a review of the position and role of technical workers in the former USSR, can be found in my paper ‘Training of Engineers under Economic Restructuring and Work Transformation: A Comparative Analysis`. This essay also stresses the centrality of engineering work and of the employees who carry it out, in the social landscape of industrialised societies.

To recognise this does not mean accepting the predictions of ‘post-industrial` theorists about the replacement of the old power elite by the newly powerful stratum of scientific and technical experts who will establish the rule of pure rationality and impartial calculations all over the world. One could hardly disagree with the heavy but justified criticism imposed on such theoretical constructions by different authors (see, for instance: Giddens 1973: 255–64; Whalley 1986: 1–11; Glover 1992 etc.). None of these critics, however, deny the evident tendency of growth in the number and influence of high tech industries and technical experts, which seems to have become universal across the community of industrialised countries during recent decades. And this is the point



which makes apparent the importance of the present paper’s research concern.

It seeks to go beyond quite well-elaborated issues of the class position of technical workers in different societies (Perrucci 1973; Whalley 1986; Lane 1989; Smith 1990; Lee & Smith 1992; Meiksins & Smith 1993b) because it is not very significant for my analysis whether engineers are able to become a new power elite or whether they will remain ‘servants of power`, whether they become the new service class of ‘trusted employees`, or the new working class etc. What really matters is the rapidly increasing impact of their professional performance and mentality on the life of society in broad terms. The way of thinking, the logic of decision-making, the system of values and preferences of a person educated and socialised as a professional engineer become nowadays more and more important for the fate of separate countries and humankind in general. This applies, regardless of whether the technical worker acts in a ‘normal` way as an engineering expert, or performs a managerial job, or is found at the top of a political hierarchy.

In this context the crucial problem is that the technocratic orientation of consciousness implying the single-minded pursuit of narrowly defined technical goals and the application of strictly engineering reason to the solution of the emergent problems (professional ‘tunnel vision`) which was and is characteristic of the vast majority of efficient engineers no longer suffices to deal with the global socio-technological challenges of the modern age. Moreover, the growing domination of technocracy as ‘a pervading ethos, a world-view which subsumes aesthetics, religion and customary thought to the rationalist mode`, which tends to neglect socio-cultural and moral aspects of human activities and to regard human beings themselves ‘as nothing more than “means” to the achievement of technical imperatives` is seen as a very dangerous tendency both in the West and the East (Giddens 1973: 258-59; Krylova 1990: 32-33).

All in all, this necessitates the replacement of the current technocratic paradigm of engineering mentality and professional culture, organised around one master value (usually technical excellence), by a democratic paradigm that presupposes a balance between different values: technical efficiency, market competitiveness, users’ needs, cultural and aesthetic appropriateness etc. and also related professional, socio-normative and communicative skills. It is this integrated vision of technology-practice that should condition engineering activities and decision-making in the late modern age.

How far are the future engineers aware of this societal need for the changing of paradigms? Does this process of change really occur at the level of modern engineering education and training in different countries? What factors tend to perpetuate the technocratic paradigm and what is it necessary (and possible) to do to break up this paradigm?

These are the main questions which my paper seeks to answer. As already mentioned, the research methodology employed in the work presents an outcome of the evolution which my originally Marxist-Leninist approach has undergone as a result of my encounter and acquaintance with the Western, and particularly British, sociological tradition. Having been gradually disillusioned in Soviet — predominantly quantitative — understanding and ways of studying the problems in question (their critical analysis can be found in my paper ‘How I Studied the Education and Training of Engineering Undergraduates within a Framework of Marxist-Leninist Methodology`) I tried to use in my subsequent work the most popular Western — predominantly qualitative — research and analytical tools.

In this context my methodology owes much to such traits of the best British sociological studies as: the close interrelation between theoretical and empirical levels of analysis; the investigation of individual behaviour within a framework of power relations, class and group interests; well-developed historical and institutional approaches etc.

On the other hand, I was not completely satisfied with the overwhelming domination of qualitative methods which is characteristic of most Western sociological studies in the area of my interests. Being quite opposite to the Soviet writings that present respondents as numbers without a face, as anonymous bearers of certain values and qualities (a sort of ‘sociological` technocracy), Western publications from my point of view leave too much room for subjectivity and voluntarism in their interpretation of rich, flexible, and undoubtedly individualised data. As a consequence, many sociological texts sometimes resemble a good piece of journalistic work rather than studies in social sciences. The other problem which, to my mind, lacks satisfactory solution within a framework of qualitative methods is the degree of representativeness of interviews, case-studies, and similar sources of information.

How far is it correct to base conclusions and generalisations about the whole social structure upon data, which, however rich and deep, are merely received from a single organisation and/or from a significantly small (in comparison with surveys) number of respondents who form a tiny part of the studied structure? How can one be sure that the informants randomly selected for interviewing are typical enough to represent the population of interest when they themselves sometimes find this difficult to define? What can guarantee that the respondents are frank enough in their answers and that there is not any influence of an interviewer on them? These and other related questions still remain unanswered for me.

Thus, having recognised a range of significant advantages intrinsic to qualitative methods, I nevertheless came to the conclusion that qualitative methodology cannot be an exclusive road for the



development of my research. If this sociological study aims to discuss the problems of democratisation and humanitarian enrichment in engineering education and socialisation then it appears to be incompatible with the monopoly of any single methodology which would tend to impoverish the social sciences both theoretically and empirically.

My sympathy is on the side of those scholars who like Huby and Dix tried to bridge the old-established gap between quantitative and qualitative research methods, to design such strategies of studying complex social phenomena ‘in which different methodologies played appropriate roles` (1992: 179).

It is this understanding of democracy in research approaches and methods that I am trying to employ as a key methodological principle in my dissertation and I hope that this attempt is not completely fruitless.

The empirical basis of my work is constituted from data of both quantitative and qualitative character. The original quantitative materials were collected during two case studies of the higher engineering education institutions in Belarus (Gomel Polytechnic Institute: academic year 1990/91) and England (Faculty of Engineering, University of Salford: academic year 1991/92) by means of questionnaire surveys of the full-time final year undergraduates (Nbel= 200; Neng= 70) and members of the teaching staff (Nbel= 60; Neng= 17).1

1 The other main characteristics of the survey samples are:Undergraduates.Sex: male - 53.5%, female - 46.5% (Belarus); male - 84.3%, female - 15.7% (England). Age: 18-21 years old - 28%, 22-24 years old - 58%, 25 and older - 14% (Belarus); 18-21 years old - 24.3%, 22-24 years old - 62.9%, 25 and older - 12.9% (England). Specialisation: technology of pressure processing - 10%, technology of industrial moulding - 14.5%, economics and management of mechanical engineering - 11.5%, electrical engineering and industrial electronics - 29.5%, mechanical engineering - 27.5%, design of aerial and location systems - 7.0% (Belarus); civil engineering - 47.1%, mechanical engineering - 32.9%, electronic and electrical engineering - 20.0% (England). Marital status: single - 55.5%, divorced - 1.0%, married - 43.5% (Belarus); single - 95.7%, married - 4.3% (England).Teaching staff.Sex: male - 80.0%, female - 20.0% (Belarus); male - 94.1%, female - 5.9% (England). Amount of years in teaching career: under 10 years - 36.6%, 10-20 years - 40.0%, 20 and more - 23.3% (Belarus); under 10 years - 29.4%, 10-20 years - 41.2%, 20 and more - 29.4% (England). Specialisation: technology of pressure processing - 10%, technology of industrial moulding - 23.3%, economics and management of mechanical engineering - 15.0%, electrical engineering and industrial electronics - 21.7%, mechanical engineering

The qualitative insights are provided by data obtained from the collective/group interviewing of second and third year undergraduates (3 males and 1 female) in electrical and manufacturing systems engineering at the University of Warwick, academic year 1993/94.

I am quite aware that my original data set, due to its restricted size and the limitations related to research design, validity and sampling which were scrutinized in my paper ‘Some Problems of Quantitative Comparative Research: From the Experience of Surveying Engineering Undergraduates in Belarus and England`, is not sufficient to form the base for the whole argumentation. That is why research evidence from my surveys and interviews is used more to illustrate rather than to prove my theoretical concepts, which are informed by a much broader analytical context. The latter consists of my own experience of teaching engineering undergraduates, meeting and talking to engineering educators and practical workers in Belarus and Great Britain, combined with empirical data and conceptual elements derived from similar studies in various countries. All in all, these enable me to proceed in search of the answers to the above-mentioned main research questions of this paper.

The first chapter contains an insight into the nature of the engineering profession, which is analysed as a source of technocratic bias in the consciousness of technical students in different countries. The undergraduates’ awareness of the contemporary skill requirements of engineering experts, and the way in which these new socio-occupational demands affect the professional formation of future engineers, are considered there as well.

The second chapter deals with nationally and culturally specific aspects of engineering education and training (EET) in different countries (with the predominant emphasis on comparison between England and Belarus) to reveal how those institutional peculiarities influence the technocratic bias of undergraduates’ consciousness. In this context I try to distinguish Soviet and Western types of technocracy.

Finally, the concluding part discusses the possibilities of reforms and improvements in EET systems aimed to achieve the required shift of paradigms in the professional mentality and culture of technical workers.

- 23.3%, design of aerial and locations systems - 6.7% (Belarus); civil engineering - 35.3%, mechanical engineering - 41.2%, electronic and electrical engineering - 23.5% (England). Marital status: single - 3.3%, divorced - 3.3%, married - 93.3% (Belarus); single - 17.6%, married - 82.4% (England).


Ch ap te r 1Analysing the nature of engineering: is the technocratic paradigm

inevitable?Alongside the developed discussion of significant

diversities in the social organisation of technical work and the status of being an engineer in different countries (Yadov 1977; Whalley 1986; Lane 1989; Lawrence 1992; McCormick 1992; Meiksins & Smith 1993a, 1993b) there is always a general recognition of similarities in the nature and functions of engineering labour across industrialised economies.

In broad context engineers are assumed ‘to be technical experts, the translators of industrial design practice, the masters of production control and surveillance’ (Lee & Smith 1992: 2). According to a more detailed (Soviet style) definition their functions encompass ‘creative use of scientific knowledge; designing and building of industrial enterprises, machinery and equipment; development or application of production methods based on the systematic use of different tools, or the design and application of these tools grounded upon firm knowledge of the principles involved in their work’ (Tushko & Khaskelevich 1971: 35). Basically the same characteristics are echoed in the other literature on the issue published either in the West or in the East (Cotgrove & Box 1970; Finniston 1980; Glover & Kelly 1987; Kugel & Nikandrov 1971; Chugunova 1986; Shepetko 1988).

The majority of writers are unanimous in defining engineering through its relations to the theoretical body of scientific knowledge and practical needs of industry and society. The nature of these relations and, therefore, of the profession in general appears to be universal and can be quite exactly characterised by the words of the engineering undergraduate who argued:

“Engineering to me always seemed to be a mode of binding the practical elements of science together in a way that pure subjects like maths and physics don’t because they tend to concentrate on theoretical aspects. From that point of view engineering is an absolute real life kind of subject which is directly applicable to what’s going on in reality” (2nd year undergraduate in manufacturing systems engineering, University of Warwick).

The main peculiarity of technical work as well as the chief feature of its distinction from pure science are explicitly grasped here. Engineering is an application of scientific principles and laws in search of practical solutions to real life problems. However, to use knowledge is not the same as to create it and this is the main criterion to draw the difference between scientific and technical jobs. For unlike pure science oriented on the production of theoretical knowledge ‘engineering is about making things’ (Whalley 1986: 57).

From the outset of the profession in the modern world to make technically efficient things and to keep them working efficiently were the main responsibilities of an engineer. To meet them technical workers have required a certain amount of theoretical knowledge in mechanics, physics and mathematics which explain the scientific principles of design and maintenance. The more complicated technical equipment and machinery become in the course of technological change, the deeper the knowledge of the relevant scientific disciplines that is necessary for engineers. One can argue that being essentially different from science, engineering nowadays is increasingly dependent on the use of scientific knowledge and research results.

Such a close connection with the principles and laws of ‘precise’ sciences which are organised in a strictly rational, logically consistent and systematic way has had a strong impact on the professional mentality and world outlook of past and present generations of technical workers. The dominance of linear logic and unambiguous problem-solving, the reliance on a calculus, precision and measurement which are vital to deal with the technical side of engineering tend to prevent most engineers from consideration of non-technological (moral, cultural, ecological etc.) imperatives involved in their work since the latter are highly irrational, unmmeasurable and unpredictable phenomena that could be nothing more than a messy complication for technically perfect schemes and solutions.

Thus mathematical correctness and technological virtuosity appear to be the only criteria and goals of professional performance for the bulk of efficient engineers whose overall value system and motivation are driven by the ‘technocratic master value’ (Pacey 1983: 124-27). Their adoration of expert rationality and technical reasoning often finds its extension in the neglect of the necessity and importance of discussing complex engineering problems with people from non-technical disciplines or with the lay public. The ‘others’ are not in the focus of the ‘tunnel vision’ intrinsic to technocratically minded engineers.

Being widespread among technical workers in different countries, technocratic values and styles of thinking orchestrate their preferences, attitudes and actual efforts in respect of the knowledge, skills, modes of behaviour etc. that are considered to be characteristic of a successful engineer. Again the principle of preference is rational and unambiguous: the knowledge and skills which are not directly related to the narrow technical aims of engineering are regarded as unnecessary and not worth spending time for their acquisition or development. The net result is a technocratic model of an efficient engineer easily


transmissible to the students of technical disciplines who from the outset of their professional education are exposed to the influence of pure rationality and linear logic and, therefore, are prepared to reproduce this model in their own considerations concerning the ‘ideal image’ of a contemporary engineer.

This can be illustrated by the tables i and ii (Appendix A) based on the data from my surveys of engineering undergraduates in Belarus and England2 They suggest that despite some differences in assessment of certain socio-professional characteristics the general patterns of preference appear to be very much alike in both countries, especially in the case of narrow professional qualities (Table i). The future Belarusian and English engineers obviously regard themselves to be practical users of scientific knowledge (highest rank in both cases is given to ‘skills in practical application of knowledge’) rather than producers of it (unanimous lowest rank to ‘research and inventional activity’).

The contours of the technocratic paradigm in undergraduates’ consciousness become more apparent if one scrutinises Table ii in which judgements about direct professional virtues are presented alongside those about broad social, economic, cultural and normative qualities. There is no doubt about the general domination of the former — which appear to have in both cases not only similar ranks, but close actual values of indexes (see qualities No 2, 6, 9) — over the latter which, being assessed quite differently by Belarusian and English students (see qualities No 1, 8, 10), are, nonetheless, similarly underrated in both cases against the backdrop of the importance attached to the main technocratic merits.

Thus the overall picture drawn by Belarusian and English respondents is close to what Whalley names ‘the classic image of the engineer’ (1986: 104) that implies first of all preference and practical preparedness to deal with things rather than people. There might be possession of certain wider skills in areas of management, economics and finance but they are considered to be less important and easily acquirable through learning by doing in the event of promotion to a corresponding post.

The domination of this image of the technical expert seems to be tacitly recognised by most Western comparative studies of EET in Europe, the United States, and Japan (Lane 1989: 78-81; Lawrence 1992; McCormick 1988, 1992; Porter 1990: 369, 397, 497, 628-29 etc.). All of these consider the efficiency of

2 The indices in these and analogous tables in the text are based on five position ordinal scales (a-b-c-d-e, where a = lowest value, e = highest value of the variable measured). They are calculated according to the following formula in which absolute number of responses ascribed to each position of the scale is used:

(-1)a + (-0.5)b + 0c + 0.5d + 1eI = _________________________________________________

a + b + c + d + e

engineering education in different countries according to a limited number of criteria such as connections with industry, balance in the curriculum between theoretical and practical elements of engineering, degree of attention to managerial aspects and the like. The socio-cultural, moral or ecological sides of technical education are never seriously discussed and are mentioned, if at all, only as issues unusual for the ‘normal’ professional formation of engineers, as in the case of Porter’s indication on the aesthetic and humanistic tradition of Italian EET (1990: 437).

Engineering and education researchers in the former Soviet Union were more inclined (or obliged) to speculate with reference to the communist ideal of harmonised personal development about the necessity of political (stemming from full commitment to the policy of CPSU), socio-normative (based on communist ethics) and cultural (supporting traditions of socialist realism) qualities for the future engineers. However, their preoccupation with the mentioned issues and related practical recommendations (some of them were extremely relevant) were only a paper fight against technocratic tendencies in higher education. As to the real courses in history, philosophy, economics and social theory which were established as an obligatory part of EET in the USSR to ensure its ‘humanitarisation’, they were scarce, completely impregnated with ideological dogmas, often delivered by low qualified staff and, therefore, tended to devalue the whole humanitarian project rather than anything else (Krylova 1990: 32-33; Zobov & Sugakova 1990: 78-81).

My own experience of teaching political history for engineering students showed that most of them considered classes in humanitarian disciplines at best as a relaxation, a short funny break between serious studies and at worse as an annoying and useless waste of time. It was easy to notice that many of the undergraduates whom I encountered during the three years of my teaching career regarded moral problems or cultural and aesthetic imperatives as something very distant from their speciality, something which has no relation to the professional characteristics of a ‘genuine’ engineer.

I gained the same impression from my interviews and conversations with engineering undergraduates at the University of Warwick. None of them mentioned socio-normative or humanitarian aspects when they were asked about the personal qualities necessary for a modern engineer. Even economic or managerial skills occupied very modest, if any, place in their considerations. The broader values and qualities were divorced, or in Pasey’s terms ‘compartmentalized’, from the realm of professional activities in the consciousness of English as well as Belarusian students, which I consider to be evidence of a technocratic paradigm.

This can also be vividly illustrated by the results of hierarchical clustering of the variables which describe


attitudes of undergraduates from the Gomel Polytechnic and Salford University towards the broad personal qualities of a contemporary engineer (Appendix B).

As we see from the dendrograms, there are three main clusters of qualities which appear to have similar contents in both cases. The average indices of importance calculated for each cluster on the basis of table ii (Appendix A) evidence that unanimous domination is taken by cluster iii encompassing direct professional merits (its index’s value is 0.59 in the Belarusian case and 0.54 in the English). Clusters i (0.32 for Belarus; 0.20 for England) and ii (0.05 for Belarus; 0.32 for England) describing socio-normative, cultural, ecological regulators and characteristics of personal behaviour lag behind, and in both cases are more closely connected with each other rather than with the cluster iii.

All in all this suggests that future engineers are inclined to regard their occupation as culturally and morally neutral, to separate pure professional qualities from one’s humanitarian values and views. The importance of the latter is not completely denied (on the contrary, some of the social characteristics are rated high enough), but nevertheless they are seen as something very different from technical work.

This vision of engineering appears to be increasingly at odds with the general tendencies and problems of global development in the late modern age. In times when the societal challenges and dilemmas of technology-driven civilization ‘call for remoralising of social life’, when ‘repressed existential issues, related not just to nature but to the moral parameters of existence as such, press themselves back on to the agenda’ (Giddens 1991: 224), the technocratic illusion of value-free expert rationality and the corresponding logic of problem-solving and performance can no longer be the main characteristics of efficient technical or any other professional labour.

The growing recognition of the necessity to break down the technocratic paradigm of engineering thinking, to radically alter existing principles of technical education, is expressed not only by philosophers, sociologists, or educational experts (Thring 1980; Pacey 1983; Smirnova 1989; Krokinskaya 1990). It is shared by some practical engineers and industrial designers who have exposed the dangers of ‘tunnel vision’ and ‘self-expressive individualism’ in engineering and articulated a new system of demands and criteria for the socio-professional formation and performance of technical workers. Its acceptance across industrialised countries is argued to be the main precondition of ‘design for survival and survival through design’ (Mara 1978; Tomalin et al 1982; Papanek 1984; Fedorova 1990: 119).

Moving from the societal level of ‘civilizational rescue’ to mundane engineering responsibilities in the work place we must admit that the pressure of new skill requirements (which, in fact, reflects the global

processes) is more and more tangible here as well. As a result, young engineers in the former Soviet Union blame EET not only for the gaps in their professional knowledge and practical skills but for the lack of economic and managerial preparedness, for poor understanding of human psychology and social relations (Krokinskaya 1990: 27-28).

In the West, changing demands on the personal qualities of technical and other highly educated experts vividly manifest themselves in the labour market through the recruitment policies of most companies which increasingly seek to employ flexible and responsible individuals with developed socio-normative qualities rather than single-minded specialists in narrow subjects (Windolf et al 1988; Moelker 1994).

The more detailed consideration of the new requirements for the professional and humanitarian preparedness of engineers that are originated on macro and micro levels by contemporary technological change and associated global transformations of the socio-natural environment can be found in my paper ‘Training of Engineers under Economic Restructuring and Work Transformation: A Comparative Analysis’. Developing the line of its argumentation, it seems important to stress here that the growing social preoccupation with political, economic, moral and cultural aspects of practical technology does not mean that traditional requirements of the technical rationality, reliability and efficiency of engineering labour and its products are no longer essential. On the contrary, modern life is dependent on the stable and precise functioning of numerous technical devices, systems or processes as never before. And nobody is really interested and able to stop the further development of human ingenuity, research and inventive genius which are explicit expressions of the very nature of humankind driven by curiosity, interest and a desire for excellence.

The point is that nowadays the value of technical virtuosity should not be the one and only ‘master’ in the professional mentality of engineers. Economic reasons and users’ or need values must be accepted as issues of the same importance. Technical workers need to combine deep knowledge of technology and engineering with a clear understanding of the ecological, socio-economic, political and cultural environment in which technology and engineering take place. Social and moral responsibility should have the same impact on engineering decision-making as the pursuit of mathematical harmony and technical sweetness. The balance and integration of all these different values, skills and qualities or, in other words, the democratic paradigm of professional mentality and activities, is what engineers in all industrialised countries really have to have in order efficiently to meet global and local challenges of civilizational development in the age of late modernity.

The increasing social demand on democratically-minded engineers is not a secret for people within national systems of EET. Engineering students and


teaching staff are well aware of the changing socio-professional requirements and feel a certain pressure to keep up with them. Thus one can regard the following students’ views on the issue as quite typical:

“An engineer who simply knows about engineering is probably not a great deal of use to a company… To gain any sort of responsibility and to get anywhere within the engineering, I think, you’ve got to have a much better appreciation and a sort of wider picture” (2nd year undergraduate in manufacturing systems engineering, University of Warwick)

“There’ve always been equivocal relations between engineering and marketing… We [i.e. engineers] tend to just specifically make good engineering products but there is no market for them… So, we just tend to make things [giggling] for our own satisfaction. From that point of view we need to be generally a lot more aware of what surrounds us and what’s required rather than fulfilling our own purposes” (3rd

year undergraduate in electrical engineering, University of Warwick).

The same ideas of conformity with end-users’ values and economic reasons are observed in the opinions of the engineering undergraduates discussing the main factors one should take into consideration to make ‘a good technical solution’:

“[Adam:] The likely use of the product, I think, is probably one of the most important factors… If you’re engineering a product to last for years and years you’ve got to think about the quality, the materials, instruction and anything else… [Kerry:] Yes, and cost is always a consideration with any product… So, generally speaking, we need to be flexible in our solutions, don’t we” (2nd year undergraduates in manufacturing systems engineering, University of Warwick).

The analysis of data from my surveys in Gomel and Salford also suggests some interesting evidence for the discussion. Thus, when the undergraduates were asked the question: “If you were a lecturer, what aspects of your work with students would you pay most attention to?” the three most often ticked options from the proposed list of seven appeared to be the same in both countries, although the pattern of preferences within the ‘leading three’ was different.

In the Belarusian case there were two top aspects of almost equal significance: ‘improvement of professional training quality’ (ticked by 59% of respondents) and ‘encouragement of independent thinking and work skills’ (52.5%), the third place was occupied by the option ‘encouraging a sense of professional duty and responsibility’ (22.5%).

The English undergraduates showed their strong preference for ‘encouragement of independent thinking and work skills’ (72.9%) while the next two most

popular options ‘encouraging a sense of professional duty and responsibility’ (37.1%) and ‘improvement of professional training quality’ (28.6%) were quite far behind.


What is the most interesting, however, is that in both countries the choice of lecturers and tutors who were offered the same list of seven options to select the most important aspects of their work resulted in the same ‘leading three’. The preferences of Belarusian staff were given to ‘encouragement of independent thinking and work skills’ (ticked by 83.3% of respondents), ‘improvement of professional training quality’ (76.7%) and ‘encouraging a sense of professional duty and responsibility’ (37.1%). In the English case the most important aspects were ‘encouragement of independent thinking and work skills’ (88%), ‘encouraging a sense of professional duty and responsibility’ (41%) and ‘improvement of professional training quality’ (35%).

The significant conclusion which can be supported by these results is that, despite the traditionally strong position of technocratic preferences, moral issues and related socio-normative values little by little struggle their way up to positions of high significance in the consciousness of students and teachers of engineering in different countries.

Another sign of recognition for a humanitarian agenda within EET is the positive attitudes of teaching staff to the enhancing of ethical aspects in the educational process. The necessity of 'ethical disciplines’, an ‘engineering Hippocratic oath’ to regulate the ‘moral spectrum of engineering’ is often accentuated by adherents of an integrated vision of technology and design (Thring 1980: 231-32; Pacey 1983: 112-13). This attention stems from the understanding of professional ethics as an influential socio-personal phenomenon aimed to establish balance and “cooperation” between different values and qualities of an engineer which, as we saw, are the key principles for the democratic reformation of experts’ thinking.

Table 1 suggests that the majority of the people directing the professional formation of future engineers in Gomel Polytechnic and the University of Salford tend to accept the mentioned socio-normative concerns.

However, to recognise the necessity of doing something is not the same as actually doing it. And as table 2 shows, the real integration of ethical elements into the processes of engineering education is far from being good enough, especially in the English case.

As to the obvious advantage of Belarusian lecturers and tutors in their reported efforts to present moral aspects of engineering to the undergraduates, it should be regarded with a certain criticism. One must take into account a long-established tradition of Soviet life in general and education in particular to take the desirable for the real as well as a great subjectivity in understanding and interpretation of such general wordings as ‘discuss often’ by different people. After all, as we saw already and will see later the outcome of ethical efforts by Belarusian teaching staff in terms of value system and world-view of their students is very much alike to that of their English colleagues. This is also confirmed by the fact that engineering educators in both institutions are similarly interested in the further development of EET’s ethical aspects (Table 1).

In summary, I would argue that universality in the nature and functions of engineering, implying the practical application of pure scientific knowledge and analytical methods to the solution of technical problems, also manifests itself in a similar influence on engineers’ occupational mentality and general way of thinking regardless of national and cultural peculiarities of their education and professional socialisation. Due to this, technical workers across industrialised countries are prone to follow a technocratic paradigm in their value orientation, problem-solving, and practical


Table 1Attitudes of Belarusian and English teaching staff to the necessity of enhancing the ethical orientation of engineering education and training.Answers to question: 'It is necessary to pay Belarusian English

Totalmore attention to ethical staff staff problems when training future engineers?’ No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)Yes 38 (63.3) 10 (58.8) 48 (62.3)Difficult to say 20 (33.3) 5 (29.4) 25 (32.5)No 2 ( 3.3) 2 (11.8) 4 ( 5.2)

60 (100) 17 (100) 77 (100)Chi-square= 1.92 p= .383

activities, while the global transformations of the human and natural environment, informed by rapid technological change, demand a democratic reformation and remoralising of experts’ thinking.

Although the necessity for a new integrated vision of engineering, technology and industrial design is increasingly recognised by technical students, educators, and practical workers, the ‘profession is still slow… to change’ (Papanek 1984: xv) and the required shift of paradigms is still far from being accomplished either in the West or in the East. To find an explanation for this quite controversial situation one obviously needs to move on from a generalising review of the engineering profession to the analysis of historical and institutional peculiarities inherent to the occupational education and socialisation of engineers in different countries. They will be in the focus of the following chapter.


Table 2The actual referring of Belarusian and English teaching staff to issues of engineering ethics during the educational process.Answers to question: 'Do you discuss the Belarusian English

Totalproblems of engineers' staff staff professional ethics when teaching students?’ No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)Yes, often 35 (58.3) 4 (23.5) 39 (50.6)Difficult to say 24 (40.0) 9 (52.9) 33 (42.9)No, never 1 ( 1.7) 4 (23.5) 5 ( 6.5)

60 (100) 17 (100) 77 (100)Chi-square= 13.44 p= .001

Ch ap te r 2Technocratic tendencies in professional education and socialisation:

different patterns, similar outcomes?

Unlike the nature and functions of technical labour the process of becoming a professional engineer in different countries tends to significantly variegate. The majority of commentators explaining national diversities in the organisation and operating of EET look at specifics of the route to industrialisation that was taken by a particular society, at the historical patterns and outcomes of struggle among employers, technical workers, the state, and preindustrial forces which have influenced the educational system and professional socialisation routines, as well as broad social attitudes and stereotypes concerning the occupation (Glover & Kelly 1987; Lane 1989; Meiksins & Smith 1993a; Meiksins & Smith 1993b). In this context national peculiarities are seen as ‘the summation of historical differences of the timing and entry into industrial capitalism… [which] is reproduced through a society’s institutions’(Lee & Smith 1992: 8).

According to these criteria institutions of engineering education and professional socialisation in the UK and ex-USSR present two extremely opposite cases. The Anglo-Saxon tradition of EET explicitly reflects the experience of the country which was historically the first to industrialise under conditions of laissez-faire principles in state industrial and educational policies, with the persistence of certain preindustrial patterns and routines. As to the Soviet EET presented in the Belarusian case, it is a vivid example of an educational tradition formed and developed under strongest state control in conditions of late ‘forced’ industrialisation and revolutionary ‘break-up’ with the past. Although it is not possible to consider in detail the cases of other industrial countries within the limits of the present paper, I would argue that their traditions of EET informed by the same factors (character of industrialisation, degree of state involvement etc.) combine in different ways the features of the two extremes in question and, therefore, can be placed somewhere in between them.

The national diversities in the timing and pattern of industrialisation appear to result in the different social status and prestige of engineering across industrialised economies. Thus in Great Britain the minor role of the state in capitalist development and the preservation of pre-industrial vestiges in the organisation of technical work, and in employers’ and public attitudes towards it, have determined the relatively low status of engineers in comparison to other professionals or to their counterparts in mainland Europe and America. These issues are scrutinized in my paper “The Character and Extent of the Professionalisation of Engineers in Britain and the Implications of This for Their Position within Management”, published as paper 3 in this series, which

presents a brief historical outlook of attempts undertaken by technical workers in this country to move up the ladder of social prestige.

The status of being an engineer in the former Soviet Union has undergone more dramatic transformations. At the beginning of broad industrialisation in the country (1928–30) engineers and technicians were in great demand. The involvement of the Soviet state in organising and running nation-wide EET, in encouraging bright young people to study engineering, in providing material and propagandist support for the profession was much greater and more energetic than in the case of the other later industrialisers like France or Germany because of the threatening international atmosphere and the socio-political and ideological meaning attached to industrialisation in Soviet Russia.

The totalitarian concentration of all available resources on a few strategic directions brought amazingly quick results in the sense of industrial development, as well as the expansion of general and technical education. In the enormous country where before 1917 professional engineers were educated in extremely limited numbers by scarce institutions (none of them was on the territory of Belarus), a broad network of specialised secondary and higher educational establishments producing thousands of qualified technical workers per year was organised within three decades. Engineering became one of the most popular and prestigious professions which provided quite high incomes, especially in the first years of industrialisation. The peak of its popularity was, probably, attained in the 1960s. By that time the pace of increase in number of engineers and technicians employed in the national economy of the USSR had reached a record level: during the period between 1960–1970 the number of Soviet technical workers grew from 700.000 to 2.493.000 i.e. 3.6 times (Suleimanov 1990: 31-32). It was a ‘glorious epoch’ when the achievements of Soviet aerospace technology, that ensured a breakthrough of humankind into outer space, together with pioneering the peaceful use of nuclear energy, created for science and engineering an additional halo of attractiveness in the eyes of Soviet youth and made technology and education experts in the West scrutinize EET in the USSR in search of ‘the secrets’ of Russian success (Krokinskaya 1990: 23; Phillips 1992: 52).

In the following decades, however, things have gradually changed. The continuous ‘planned’ expansion in the production of technical workers (in 1974 the number of specialists graduated from engineering institutes in the USSR was 6 times higher than in the

USA (Yadov 1977: 11)) was not accompanied by the proper use of engineering labour in the national economy. The over-educated technical workers found themselves exposed to progressive routinization in the working place, where the main emphasis was on non-creative, production functions, where their technical knowledge was under-utilized and their access to research and development was circumscribed. Besides, as a result of a deliberate policy of ‘social equality’, the income differential between engineers and manual workers has been significantly narrowed and, moreover, some categories of the latter became much better paid than the former. In recent years, for instance, the average salary of an engineering graduate was half the average wages earned by a skilled manual worker of the same age (Rutkevich & Rubina 1988: 88-89; Babosov 1983: 94). The bright image of Soviet engineering faded to black and the profession has gone down the ladder of prestige (Kryshtanovskaya 1988; Lisovsky 1990a: 12-13).

Thus one can argue that two cases of industrialisation diametrically opposite in the sense of time, pace, state involvement etc. have eventually resulted in approximately the same relatively low social status of engineering both in the UK and ex-USSR (Belarus). The key difference of the stories, however, is that British engineers have more or less successfully struggled to raise their prestige to the level of classical professions, to gloss over the stigma of manual labour historically associated with technical work in this country. On the contrary, the social rating of their Soviet counterparts, which from the outset was high and buttressed by formal credentials, different job character, level of authority and payment etc., is declining to the level of skilled manual workers and the graduate barrier appears to be the last significant divide between two categories of employees.

This difference in the backgrounds against which school leavers in both countries make their vocational choice, to my mind, tends to manifest itself in quite diverse reasons informing the choice of an engineering career in England and Belarus.

In the British case, the relatively low status of technical occupations appears as a sort of guarantee that most of the students enter an engineering course not because it leads to a highly fashionable or prestigious profession, but because of their genuine interest in engineering itself. Some of the decisions in favour of engineering probably involve consideration of future prospects in technological change which promise a further increase in the status and importance of engineering in society. It is difficult to say how far these considerations really influence the vocational choice of English students, but they are definitely mentioned in advertising literature produced by Departments of Engineering in this country.

Most people who entered engineering education in the former Soviet Union in the 1980s (i.e. those who were in the last year of their course at the time of my

research) seem to have no illusions about any bright prospects of technological change in their country or about the possible revival of the social status of engineering. That is why the interest in the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the profession, which was not really acknowledged in the society, has influenced their vocational choice quite moderately. What was more important is the possession of higher education credentials which, regardless of the specialism, were able to provide good career prospects in many other areas more respected than engineering and, generally, were a phenomenon of noticeable prestige in the ex-USSR. There was also an increasing number of students who did not take any of these reasons into account. They entered engineering education by chance in order to put off a decision to work for some years or simply ‘to have fun’ in a student environment. As a rule, they had quite poor achievements at secondary school, but nevertheless were accepted onto the course because engineering education did not attract enough bright applicants whereas it was necessary to fulfil somehow the state plan for the intake into EET across the country.

The discussed divergence in factors and reasons influencing undergraduates’ choice of speciality in the UK and ex-USSR can be traced on the data from the surveys in Gomel and Salford presented in Table iii (Appendix A). It shows that the principal reasons of undertaking professional education and training for English undergraduates were interest in the occupation itself, orientation to the creative character of engineering which enables them to realise their abilities. The general benefits of higher education were also taken into serious account by the future English engineers while making their choice of speciality. These data appear to be in conformity with the results of a nation-wide survey of engineering graduates published by Berthoud and Smith, who found the same principal reasons to determine their respondents’ decision to take a course in engineering (1980: 65).

In the Belarusian case, orientation to higher education is the only obviously leading motive whereas ‘interest in profession’, which has the second highest (but already negative) value of the influence index, lags far behind. The comparatively high meaning of ‘accidental circumstances’ among the rest of the factors indicates the much more sporadic, ad hoc character of vocational decisions made by Belarusian students.

Thus we can suggest that English undergraduates make their choice of degree in engineering more consciously than their Belarusian counterparts, who from the outset tend to be less committed to the quite randomly chosen profession.

Apart from the mentioned divergence in evolution of professional status, this phenomenon can be explained by a narrow specialisation in the last years of British

secondary schools (A-levels). It develops interests and abilities of the students in a certain direction, unlike the

This can not be explained by the better work of career guidance and information services at English schools, since in the case of the engineering profession their work is assessed as ‘often inadequate’ (Berthoud & Smith 1980: 62). And as one can also see there is no difference in staff views on the quality of career guidance registered by my surveys in Belarus and England (Table 4).

It seems more likely that the greater adequacy in the image of the profession inherent to English freshmen is

determined by the practical experience of industrial work prior to entering the University, which traditionally was and still is a wide-spread starting point

for becoming a professional engineer in Britain (Berthoud & Smith 1980: 63). Thus, there were about

26% of respondents at Salford University who had been employed before entering higher education in the area connected with their degree course, while the share of such students in Belarusian sample was 13%.

Putting all of these evidence and considerations together we can argue that English engineering students from the very beginning of their professional education are more aware of and oriented to the content and values of engineering. Therefore, they appear to be more predisposed to their further quick integration into

Table 3Staff assessment of undergraduates’ awareness of the future profession at the beginning of their professional educationAnswers on question: ‘How many first year Belarusian English Total students have the correct staff staff image of their futureprofession?’ No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)Majority have the correct

image 3 ( 5.0) 2 (11.8) 5 ( 6.5)Some students havethe correct image 23 (38.3) 11 (64.7) 34 (44.2)Majority do not have the correct image 29 (48.3) 3 (17.6) 32 (41.6)Practically no one hasthe correct image 5 ( 8.3) 1 ( 5.9) 6 ( 7.8)

60 (100) 17 (100) 77 (100)

Maintel-Haenszel Chi-square= 4.37 p= .036

Table 4Quality of the career guidance work with the undergraduates prior to entering the University (staff assessment)Level of quality Belarusian English Total

staff staffNo. (%) No. (%) No. (%)

High 1 ( 1.7) 0 (00.0) 1 (1.3)Higher than medium 7 (11.9) 2 (11.8) 9 (11.8)Medium 28 (47.5) 9 (52.9) 37 (48.7)Lower than medium 12 (20.3) 6 (35.3) 18 (23.7)Low 11 (18.6) 0 (00.0) 11 (14.5)

59 (100) 17 (100) 76 (100)

Maintel-Haenszel Chi-square= .231 p= .631

the profession with the subsequent acceptance of the ‘classic’ technocratic paradigm of thinking. The latter, as we remember, is based on the exclusive domination of narrow technical imperatives and the marginalisation or compartmentalization of the rest of non-technological values and interests (see, for instance, index’s value of the first factor in Table iii, Appendix A). Whereas all this might be the case for some students in Belarus, their attitudes to the profession are generally more distant and, therefore, the preconditions for classic technocratic bias of their consciousness are not seen

quite so clearly at this stage.The character of vocational choice is definitely among

the main factors influencing the emotional attitudes of undergraduates towards their future profession. A person who has consciously chosen the occupation that is closest to his/her interests and abilities will more likely enjoy it during professional training and after.

This can be quite vividly illustrated by the data from my surveys (Table 5), which suggest that English undergraduates have much better attitudes towards their speciality than their Belarusian counterparts.

The greater satisfaction with the profession inherent to English engineering students is obviously behind their more confident negative position in respect of the hypothetical possibility of re-arranging their initial choice of speciality. Many Belarusian students, on the contrary, would be happy to do so (Table 6).

The picture in general looks as though the quite realistic professional expectations of English undergraduates were not deceived in their real encounter with EET and the profession itself and, therefore, there is no reason to be disappointed with the vocational choice they originally made.

The process of education and training itself is a mighty factor shaping and reshaping students’ attitudes to the future occupation as well as the main traits of their professional mentality. The majority of undergraduates who participated in my surveys

recognised the changing impact of EET on their image of the profession. Although about 40% of the total number of respondents from both countries stated the opposite, we should take into account that quite often the impact of the day-to-day educational environment on the mentality of students might occur on the subconscious level, unnoticed by themselves.

As one can see from table 7, there is a significant divergence in the directions of evolution in the undergraduate’ image of engineering. While in the

English case the number of those who improved their image of the future occupation is twice as high as those who became disappointed in it, the Belarusian case looks much more ‘balanced’. Moreover, the share of the second category among Belarusian students is 3% bigger than of the first one.

Table 5Undergraduates’ attitudes to their profession/speciality

Answers to question: Belarusian English Total ‘Do you like students students speciality involved?’ No. (%) No. (%)

No. (%)Yes 69 (34.5) 42 (60.0) 111 (41.1)Neither Yes nor No 95 (47.5) 24 (34.3) 119 (44.1)No 36 (18.5) 4 ( 5.7) 40 (14.8)

200 (100) 70 (100) 270 (100)

Chi-square= 15.54 p= .000

This invites us to compare the main peculiarities of EET in both countries. From my point of view, the key difference here is that 5 years of engineering education in the ex-USSR encompass a huge list of subjects which are compulsory to study (or more precisely: to pass) in order to fulfil formal state requirement and standards, while the usual 3 years of a British degree course in engineering are much more flexible in the context which implies a limited list of obligatory subjects and a wide range of options.

Until very recently the pattern of Soviet higher education gave scarce possibilities of choice for the students who had to obey the requirements of an overcrowded and superficially diverse course that tends to provide a lot of detailed and concrete knowledge,

rather than general principles of problem-solving and know-how of professional self-education. The emphasis on the latter is more characteristic of the British academic system which has been historically known for its liberal attitudes to the students, who are taught and encouraged to make up their minds independently, to choose the ‘ends and means’ adequate to their abilities and resources.

Without going into detailed discussion of the advantages and shortcomings of the two mentioned traditions in EET, we must admit that in our case engineering students from England appear to be more satisfied with the activities linked to professional training than their counterparts from Belarus (Table 8).

Table 6Stability of undergraduates’ vocational choiceAnswers to question:

‘Would you repeat your Belarusian EnglishTotal

choice of speciality/ students students profession?’ No. (%) No. (%)

No. (%)Yes 45 (22.5) 38 (54.3) 83 (30.7)Neither Yes nor No 64 (32.0) 14 (20.0) 78 (28.9)No 91 (45.5) 18 (25.7) 109 (40.4)Total 200 (100) 70 (100) 270 (100)


Table 7Evolution in the undergraduates’ image of the future profession under the impact of occupational education and training

Answers to question: ‘Has your image of the intended profession Belarusian English Total

changed since entering students students the university?’ No. (%) No. (%)

No. (%)Changed for the better53 (26.8) 30 (43.5) 83 (31.1)Did not change 85 (42.9) 25 (36.2) 110 (41.2)Changed for the worse60 (30.3) 14 (20.3) 74 (27.7)

198 (100) 69 (100) 267 (100)


The same tendency can be observed in table 9 which shows that English students in general tend to assess the quality of different forms of the educational and training process higher than Belarusian undergraduates, except in the case of social sciences. However, the divergence in the assessments of the latter is not big enough to be considered seriously.

It is also quite clear that although different between countries, the index values in general are far from highly significant (the highest index in Table 12 is 0.4 while the highest possible is 1.0). This, to my mind, reflects the situation in which a certain understanding of the occupation and personal qualities necessary to perform professional duties, which has been formed in one way or another in the consciousness of practically all final year students, comes into contradiction with the existing pattern of education and training. The undergraduates increasingly feel that they are taught in ‘a wrong way’ with an emphasis on subjects that seem to be useless in their future activities. The following views of English engineering undergraduates based on their experience of industrial placements, or working for a sponsor, look to me typical and very much like the position of their Belarusian counterparts who are in many ways more adherent to that kind of idea:

“[When working in industry] I found that a lot of work which a modern engineer requires you can actually do if you’ve got a reasonable technical background up to a sort of A-level. I mean most of the other things you can pick up in practical work. It will teach you everything you need to know… Manufacturing should be a fairly practical degree but I think it’s still too much emphasis on basic learning stuff we do to take it for exams and then we go to the next bit of information. And a lot of this stuff at the end of the day you’ll unlikely end up

using… Yes, unfortunately, to a certain extent it is useless.

A lot of the time here [in University] I do feel like you’re becoming a professional exam taker… You go throughout the year and, then, at the end you’re just purely concentrated on exams. All you can think about is exams and how you gonna pass them… The way I’m feeling my system at the moment is I’m gonna fulfil this degree, get the piece of paper and then go to an organisation and actually learn to do what I’m doing in the job there… I’m gonna need to be trained to be useful for that company. That will be my next learning process…

Table 8Undergraduates’ attitudes to activities connected with the professional education and training

Answers to question: Belarusian English Total ‘Do you enjoy activities students students

connected with theprofessional training?’ No. (%) No. (%)

No. (%)Yes 38 (19.0) 30 (44.8) 68 (25.5)More likely Yes than No102 (51.0) 25 (37.3) 127 (47.6)More likely No than Yes54 (27.0) 6 ( 9.0) 60 (22.5)No 6 ( 3.0) 6 ( 9.0) 12 ( 4.5)

200 (100) 67 (100) 267 (100)


I think part of the problem really is that engineering courses are generally in a lot of ways are very outdated… For example, a lot of our courses have changed very very little. I mean not just the individual courses but the choice of courses that you are offered and so on have changed very little probably in the last 5–10 years… You know, I can’t believe that things haven’t changed enough for the best way to be teaching now, to be different from the way it was there” (2nd and 3rd year undergraduates in manufacturing systems and electrical engineering, University of Warwick).

Thus, the deeper penetration into the practice of the profession leads English undergraduates to the assimilation of the ‘cult of experience’ historically inherent in British engineering (Whalley 1986: 53-54) and implying the superiority of a practical skill over University theories and subjects. Not only does this determine a certain dissatisfaction with the current education, especially with its practical aspects (see table 9 again), but it also seems to reflect the growing influence of technocratic reasoning which is characterised by concentration on narrow practical knowledge and skills necessary to pursue the master value of technical virtuosity. It is noteworthy that although they are not very happy with their professional education, English students do not lose their interest in the profession. They are sure enough that even if their

future occupation does not require a lot of theoretical knowledge it will certainly provide them with opportunities to use their creative abilities and ingenuity, since the important thing there ‘is an idea of flexibility and being able to cope with lots of different situations’ (2nd year manufacturing systems engineering undergraduate, University of Warwick).

One might suggest that discovering practical engineering has had a great influence on the professional mentality of Belarusian students as well. For many of them, who from the outset were not so committed to the profession, an encounter with the reality of engineering work at the average Soviet enterprise resulted in a final occupational disillusionment. They found out not only that high theoretical knowledge is irrelevant for real technical work, but also that there are very few, if any, possibilities for most engineers to realise themselves in a creative job.

The first thing that students in the ex-USSR usually expected to hear from their employers after graduating was: “Forget everything you were taught in the University” (Lisovsky 1990b: 178). The main requirement for them was to maintain and supervise a monotonous production process which did not change for years and was geared to pursue the fulfilment of state plans (Soviet master value) that, as a rule, had little to do with technical efficiency or economic rationality. In this context the attitudes of most students

Table 9The undergraduates’ satisfaction with the quality of different forms of educational and training process (satisfaction index’s value ranges between +1 and -1)

Indexes of satisfactionForms of education Belarus England (Ib-Ie) Mantel-Haenszel and training Ib Ie Î Chi2 P 1. Lectures on

special subjects .23 .34 .11 3.41 NS2. Tutorials/labs on

special subjects .04 .21 .17 6.55 .0113. Lectures on common

education subjects(maths, physics etc) .06 .27 .21 10.58 .001

4. Tutorials/practicalclasses on commoneducation subjects -.08 .15 .23 10.81 .001

5. Lectures on socialsubjects -.04 -.23 .19 5.82 .016

6. Seminars/tutorialson social sciences (where appropriate) -.12 -.23 .11 1.74 NS

7. Exams, tests .05 .40 .35 22.86 .000

to the broader knowledge and skills as well as to the training in general were informed by the wide-spread consideration: “Why should I do my best if it would not be acknowledged after my graduation anywhere” (Lisovsky 1990b: 178-79). Thus alongside the other factors, the technocratic pattern of labour use established in Soviet society has influenced the technocratic logic of undergraduates’ preparations for their future job.

It is possibly the case that this image of a future professional role as a passive performer of prescribed narrow tasks, together with the generally strict and pressing tradition of education oriented on the one-way, linear transmission of often outdated knowledge to students, are responsible for their underdeveloped creative abilities, initiativeness and independence in their work. These deficiencies appear to be characteristic of Belarusian students to a much greater extent than of English undergraduates. This can be traced on their own assessments (Table 10) as well as through the judgements of their tutors (Table 11).

The general picture looks as though English undergraduates driven by definite interest towards ‘existential pleasures’ of their profession and stimulated by a more liberal educational atmosphere (which, by the way, enables them to easily criticise EET) quite confidently and independently make their way to the occupational and educational goals stemming from their own understanding of the role and functions of a modern engineer. Since the latter has apparent technocratic bias, it is not an accident that the main attention of English students is concentrated on acquiring narrow practical knowledge and skills that

Table 10The level of undergraduates’ independence in performing of educational tasks according to their self-assessment

Scale Belarusian EnglishTotal

of students studentslevels No. (%) No. (%)

No. (%)

Completely independent41 (63.1) 24 (36.9) 65 (100)Quite independent 62 (67.4) 30 (32.6) 92 (100)Semi-independent 87 (85.3) 15 (14.7) 102 (100)Non-independent 7 (87.5) 1 (12.5) 8 (100)Total 197 (73.8) 70 (26.2) 267 (100)


Table 11The undergraduates’ possession of different socio-professional qualities according to the assessment of teaching staff (possession index’s value ranges between +1 and -1)

Indexes of possessionSocio-professional Belarus England (Ib-Ie) Mantel-Haenszel qualities Ib Ie Î Chi2

P 1. Interest in the

future profession -.15 .29 .44 12.40 .0002. Desire to study,

to obtain knowledge -.24 .09 .33 7.20 .0073. Autonomy and

independence in study and work -.25 .09 .34 9.03 .003

4. Initiative andcreative approach -.40 .06 .46 19.19 .000

5. Humanitarian knowledge (arts,music, literature) -.26 -.27 .01 0.66 NS

sometimes undermines their desire to study general theoretical subjects and certainly determines their attitudes to humanitarian knowledge as something incompatible with real engineering.

Belarusian undergraduates seem to drift down the flow without any clearly articulated aims or inclinations. Many of them are so-called ‘ordinary’ or ‘gray’ students, which became a common phenomenon in most Soviet universities and institutes during the

1980s and are argued to be the most explicit evidence of crisis in higher education and the general socio-political and ideological stagnation in the USSR (Krokinskaya 1990: 23-28; Lisovsky 1990b: 177-79). It is this category of undergraduates that supplies the ranks of ‘mean engineers’, non-creative performers and conformists which has gradually turned into a social group big enough to be ignored even in the ‘prosperous’ and ‘politically correct’ Brezhnev’s times (Yadov 1977: 63). Neither the excitement of the profession nor interest in a broad social-humanitarian knowledge appear to dominate their consciousness and behaviour. Being used to formal control and guidance they are not ready and interested to take responsibility, to make independent decisions and judgments, to prove their point of view. Neither have they developed personal skills to do these. The technocratic approach of Belarusian students, which in many respects is even

more narrow than that of English undergraduates, stemmed from their conventional readiness to become parts, ‘nuts and bolts’ of the big bureaucratic machine named Soviet society. They knew it would not give them much in the sense of an interesting and challenging job or a stimulating salary but it would not demand much from them either, except conformity (at least formal) with its rules and satisfactory performance of prescribed limited functions.

One can see quite a clear illustration for what has been discussed above in Table 12, which presents undergraduates’ view of themselves on the threshold of their professional career. Taking into account the often occurring divergence between self-assessment and real situation, we must admit that the data in question appear to be in conformity with the staff views registered in Table 11 and the general logic of our argument.

More independent minded and self-confident English undergraduates obviously feel themselves better prepared for most aspects of their future career, although their self-assessments are far from ideal. It is noteworthy that the latter are decreasing and becoming almost equal to Belarusian parameters in areas of socio-economic, moral and ecological knowledge and skills, where students from both countries consider themselves quite ill-prepared. But, as we saw earlier, many of them are not really interested in being prepared better.

Table 12Self-assessment of undergraduates’ preparedness for different aspects of their future career (preparedness index’s value ranges between +1 and -1)

Indexes of preparedness Mantel- Preparedness in the Belarus England (Ib-Ie)

Haenszel area of… Ib Ie Î Chi2

P 1. professional

knowledge & skills .01 .25 .24 23.76 .0002. social sciences

knowledge -.26 -.13 .13 3.77 .0523. economic & finance

knowledge -.04 -.06 .02 0.15 NS4. humanitarian

knowledge (arts, music, literature etc.) -.01 -.34 .33 21.89 .000

5. researchactivities -.44 -.08 .36 32.47 .000

6. management knowledge & skills -.13 .04 .27 6.46 .011

7. professional ethics -.02 -.04 .02 0.11 NS

8. ecologicalknowledge .01 .01 .00 0.00 NS

The only one advantage of Belarusian undergraduates (also not confirmed by their tutors, see Table 11) is better humanitarian knowledge, which is probably the sole echo of all the ‘humanitarisation’ programmes and efforts within Soviet EET which were discussed in Chapter 1. The better does not mean the best, for the balance between preparedness or, better to say, unpreparedness in professional and humanitarian areas observed in self-estimations of Belarusians does not mean that we have students with a really democratic paradigm of thinking. I would rather argue that here we have another type of technocratic mentality.

Unlike the ‘classic’ technocrats, overwhelmed with a desire to express themselves through their work, to create something exclusive, technically perfect that drives the imagination regardless of social, economic or ecological costs of this ‘wonder’, Soviet-type technocrats are subjected to the conformist master value. It demands that they be ‘like everybody’, not to do more than prescribed, not to think about the problems beyond your limited area of competence, because there are other specialists to deal with economy, ecology, culture as well as the ‘wise’ people on the top to make the right decisions. They are indifferent technocrats, their tunnel vision stems not from an obsession with the creative essence of engineering, but from the convenience of being blind and cool to the other issues, which is the most rational way (and as engineers they are quite qualified to calculate this!) to a calm and balanced individual existence in a totalitarian society.

It would be simplifying to argue that the ‘classic’ type of technocrat is characteristic only of Western countries, whereas indifferent technocracy is exclusively inherent to the Eastern, Soviet-type economies. We can certainly find representatives of both technocratic ‘breeds’ (and there might be other sub-types of technocracy as well) in each country. The main difference here is presumably the proportions of their mixture.

However, the revealed diversity in technocratic types and supposed divergence in their actual combinations do not influence the essence of technocracy itself, which manifests its dangerous traits regardless of national or cultural context. The technocrats in the UK, ex-USSR or any other country are similar in their professional selfishness and value-free, amoral vision of technology, in their preoccupation with their own interests and goals and neglect of social benefits and users’ needs, in their linear conventional wisdom and lack of an interdisciplinary approach etc. And it is these characteristics which have to become extinct with the expansion of a democratic paradigm of thinking within the engineering profession.

But, as we see, the different patterns and traditions of EET in Belarus and England similarly suggest very few, if any, real possibilities to bring up a new type of technical worker with a more rounded, inter-

disciplinary approach and integrated vision of engineering.

In this sense the situation is more or less the same in the system of technical education established in France, ‘the historic home of the “true” engineer-technocrat’ (Glover 1992: 33), in American engineering schools, where ‘the least bit of imagination, social concern or cultural interest is snuffed out under a crushing load of purely technical subjects’ (Florman 1976: 92), and in many other EET institutions all over the world where the educational philosophy ‘is an equal mixture of self-indulgent and self-expressive bohemian individualism and a materialism both profit-oriented and brutal’ (Papanek 1984: 285).

There are quite a lot of attempts to overcome these deficiencies in professional training and socialisation of contemporary engineers and designers and, in many respects, these problems are now better handled (Pacey 1983: 167-68). Yet the radical qualitative changes in patterns and philosophy of EET are still far from being realised. There is an apparent need in further studies and discussion aimed to reveal with regard to different national and cultural contexts what should be done to achieve the global shift of paradigms in the occupational mentality of technical workers, to ensure the efficient professional formation of engineers able to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy PAGE

Co n c l u s i o n

It would be an unjustified presumption to consider that all aspects of the technocracy-democracy dilemma inherent to the professional formation of modern engineers in different countries are covered in this paper. I am also not sure whether the empirical basis of the work is explicit enough to support its theoretical efforts aimed to outline my main research concern.

One should bear in mind that due to the limitations mentioned in Introduction my original data are unable to prove anything themselves and, therefore, can be used only as illustrations or background for the argumentation based upon more representative analytical sources. But even in this case, the treatment of first hand quantitative and qualitative materials was probably far from ideal. My preoccupation with the central problems of the research has originated a sort of sociological tunnel vision, when other possible explanations of empirical evidence may have been ignored.

Thus, gender differences between Belarusian and English samples and, correspondingly, between EET in the two countries were not taken into account. While there is quite a significant proportion of female students within Soviet higher education (in our case it was 46.5% of respondents in Gomel against 15.7% in Salford), according to some large-scale studies that can be an explanation for the low indices of undergraduates’ independence and initiative in training and research work, as well as for poor self-assessments of professional preparedness in general (Kozlov 1990: 149-53).

Another missing explanatory factor is an analysis of the socio-political situation in the ex-USSR at the moment of my surveys (1990/91). Unlike England, where radical societal transformations are largely a matter of history (especially in the perception of engineering undergraduates), the ‘hot` atmosphere of social confrontation between a newly emerged democratic opposition and the old communist orthodoxy (which later resulted in the August coup) might have had an impact on students’ views registered by the survey. In this context some extreme negative judgements can be seen not as a reflection of the real situation but rather as manifestations of radical criticism and nihilism which became wide spread in the whole society, and especially among undergraduates, at that time. There might be other hidden agencies that influenced the views and responses of future engineers in Belarus and England.

However, even taking them all into consideration, one can hardly deny the main argument of the paper, that there is an apparent technocratic bias in

the professional mentality of engineering students, which is linked to the nature of their occupation and patterns of professional education and socialisation.

Having emerged in different socio-economic conditions and being distinct in its types, the phenomenon of technocracy becomes increasingly incompatible with, and even dangerous to, the progress of national economies and the whole of human civilization in the late modern age. There are no reasons to expect that the technocratic paradigm of thinking will be gradually self-dissolving under the impact of a changing environment and a logic of global development. Being deeply rooted in the cultural and educational institutions of industrialised societies, the technocratic tradition tends to adjust itself to the new conditions, to force its own logic of development.

Thus recent studies in ‘post-totalitarian` Belarus show that technocratic ideas and notions are getting increasingly popular in the mass consciousness of the people in the course of economic reform,s although the latter aimed to remove among others such factors as state monopoly, over-regulation, statutory plans etc. which had promoted Soviet-type technocracy in previous years (Titarenko 1993: 32-33).

If we are seriously to break up a ‘vicious circle` of technocratic practice in engineering education and activities we need to have elaborated programmes of changing national EET systems, combined with sufficient moral and material resources to turn them into reality. Although the practical ways and means of such reforms should be different to conform with particular national and cultural traditions, there has to be a similarity in their philosophy, general aims and principles.

Among the most essential of them I would like to mention the issue to which English undergraduates in their interviews often referred as the best remedy against almost all deficiencies of current technical education. This is establishing broad connections and partnership between universities and industry, between educators and employers. ‘Basically industry needs to approach the educational system and give them [i.e. educators] guide-lines what they want` (2nd year electric engineering undergraduate, University of Warwick). Informed by growing competition in the global markets which demands technical excellence, economic rationality and ecological safety to be equally characteristic of any product, the needs and wants of industrial firms and organisations being directly transmitted to EET will definitely act against narrow specialisation,

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES WORKING PAPER NUMBER1

20

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy PAGE

ignoring of interdisciplinary approach, eschewing of marketing aspects etc.

However the complete submission of engineering education to industrial needs might also be dangerous. If the master value of capitalist production — profit making — replaces the master value of virtuosity in the professional mentality of technical workers it will result in nothing more than another version of technocracy which, like the ‘classic` one, has little to do with social responsibility, cultural and aesthetic criteria or users’ interests.

To prevent this threat of marketing technocracy, to ensure real balance between different values and motives within the formation of the professional mentality of future engineers, one obviously needs to retain their socialisation under the independent influence of Universities. The latter should be the agencies presenting the interests of society, views of technology consumers and users; providing interdisciplinary bridges, moral and cultural insights; inserting the missing humanitarian dimension in flexible practice-oriented engineering courses etc.

As several authors have mentioned, to achieve these ends in current EET it is necessary not just to include some new subjects in the engineering curriculum but to rethink the whole philosophy of training, from improving the contents of technical textbooks to introducing non-traditional educational forms (like work of interdisciplinary student teams for the practical needs of a local community) and altering the whole pattern of relations within the system ‘state-education-industry` (Pacey 1983: 167-73, Papanek 1984: 343-47, Volkov et al 1994).

All these obviously necessitate the involvement and broad cooperation of different social forces and groups whose interests and activities, however diverse, today become more and more dependent on the quality of scientific and engineering expertise. However, the real unification of social efforts and concerns aimed at the democratisation of EET in different countries is still far from being realised. The forces of social inertia, guild selfishness and ambition, short-sighted pursuit of narrow interests, which are characteristic of many industrialists and educators, tend to perpetuate the situation on the level of general discussions and paying lip service to the reforms.

It remains to be seen whether these old-established ‘invisible` barriers will be overcome in the nearest future or the professional formation of a contemporary engineer will remain halfway between paradigms of technocracy and democracy.3

3?

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES WORKING PAPER NUMBER1

21

Refe ren cesBabosov, E.M. (1983) (Ed), Sovetsky Rabochy: Social’ny i Dukhovny Oblik, Minsk: Nauka i Tekhnika.

Berthoud, R. & Smith, D.J. (1980), The Education, Training and Careers of Professional Engineers, London: HMSO.

Cotgrove, S. & Box, S. (1970), Science, Industry and Society: Studies in Sociology of Science, London: Allen & Unwin.

Chugunova, E.S. (1986), Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie Osobennosti Tvorcheskoi Aktivnosti Inzhenerov, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

Fedorova, T.N. (1990), ‘Nekotorye Problemy Gumanitarnoi Podgotovki Budushchego Spetsialista.` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

Finniston, Sir, H.M. (1980), Engineering Our Future: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering Profession. (Sir H.M. Finniston, Chairman), London: HMSO.

Florman, S.C. (1976), The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, New York: St.Martin’s Press.

Giddens, A. (1973), The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, London: Hutchinson.

Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Glover, I.A. (1992), ‘Wheels within Wheels: Predicting and Accounting for Fashionable Alternatives to Engineering.` In G.L.Lee & C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.

Glover, I.A. & Kelly, M.P. (1987), Engineers in Britain: A Sociological Study of the Engineering Dimension, London: Allen & Unwin.

Huby, M. & Dix, G. (1992), ‘Merging Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Survey Design, Analysis and Interpretation.` In A.Westlake et al. (Eds) Survey and Statistical Computing, London: North Holland.

Kozlov, A.A. (1990), ‘Muzhchina i Zhenshchina na Poroge Trudovoi Deyatel’nosti.` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

Krokinskaya, O.K. (1990), ‘Vuz Glazami Molodykh Spetsialistov 80-kh Godov.` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

Krylova, N.B. (1990), Formirovanie Kul’tury Budushchego Spetsialista, Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.

Kryshtanovskaya, O. (1988), ‘Vniz po Lestnitse Prestizha’ Socialisticheskaya Industriya, Daily, 16 June.

Kugel, S.A. & Nikandrov, O.M. (1971), Molodye Inzhenery, Moscow: Mysl’.

Lane, C. (1989), Management and Labour in Europe, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Lawrence, P. (1992), ‘Engineering and Management in West Germany: A Study in Consistency?` In G.L.Lee & C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.

Lee, G.L. & Smith, C. (1992), ‘Engineers and Management in Comparative Perspectives.` In G.L.Lee & C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.

Lisovsky, V.T. (1990a), Sovetskoe Studenchestvo: Sociologicheskie Ocherki, Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.

Lisovsky, V.T. (1990b), ‘Kriterii Tipologizatsii Sovremennykh Studentov.` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

Mara, D. (1978), ‘The Influence of Conventional Practice on Design Capabilities.` In A.Pacey (Ed) Sanitation in Developing Countries, Chichester & New York: John Whilley.

McCormick, K. (1988), ‘Engineering Education in Britain and Japan: Some Reflection on the Use of ‘The Best Practice’ Models in International Comparison’ Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 4, November, Pp. 583 - 605.

McCormick, K. (1992), ‘Japanese Engineers and Management Cultures.` In G.L.Lee & C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.

Meiksins, P. & Smith, C. (1993a), ‘Why American Engineers aren’t Unionized: A Comparative Perspective` Theory and Society, 22, Pp. 57-93.

Meiksins, P. & Smith, C. (1993b), ‘Organizing Engineering Work: A Comparative Analysis` Work and Occupations, Vol. 20, No. 2, May, Pp. 123-146.

Moelker, R. (1994), ‘The Demand for Higher Education: The Changing Relations between Education and Work as Represented in Dutch Personnel Advertisements.` Paper presented at 13th World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, 18-23 July.

Pacey, A. (1983), The Culture of Technology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Papanek, V. (1984), Design for the Real World, 2nd edn., London: Thames & Hudson.

Perrucci, R (1973), ‘Engineering: Professional Servant of Power.` In E.Freidson (Ed) Professions and Their Prospects, Beverly Hills & London: Sage.

Phillips, D. (1992), ‘Borrowing Educational Policy` Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol. 2 (2), Pp. 49-55.

Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London: Macmillam.

Rutkevich, M.N. & Rubina, L.Ya. (1988), Obschestvennye Potrebnosti, Sistema Obrazovaniya, Molodezh, Moscow: Politizdat.

Shepetko, V.F. (1988), Formirovanie Tvorcheskoi Aktivnosti Inzhenerov: (Sotsiologichesky Aspekt), Vilnius: Mintis.

Smirnova, E.E. (1989) (Ed), Stanovlenie Spetsialista, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

Suleimanov, M.N. (1990) (Ed), Chelovek i Mir Professii, Sverdlovsk: Ural’sky Universitet.

Thring, M.W. (1980), The Engineer’s Conscience, London: Northgate.

Titarenko, L.G. (1993), ‘Technocratic Consciousness in Conditions of Economic Reform in Belarus.` In Yu.A.Alexeichenko & G.N.Sokolova (Eds) Social and Managerial Aspects of Economic Restructuring, Minsk: Belarusian Academy of Sciences.

Tomalin, E., Taylor, A., Almond, B. & Thomas, T. (1982), ‘Engineering Design and Appropriate Technology` NATTA Newsletter, No.18, July/August, Pp. 25-32.

Tushko, A.P. & Khaskelevich, S.I. (1971), Nauchnye Issledovaniya: Organizatsiya i Upravlenie, Moscow: Nauka.

Volkov, Yu., Kapustin, M., Lobko, A. (1994), ‘Gosvuzy-Bankroty Dolzhny Uiti: Novaya Kontseptsiya Vyshego Obrazovaniya v Rossii` Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 31 March.

Whalley, P. (1986), The Social Production of Technical Work: The Case of British Engineers, London: Heinemann.

Windolf, P. & Wood, S. with Hohn, H.M. & Manwaring, T. (1988), Recruitment and Selection in the Labour Market: A Comparative Study of Britain and West Germany, Aldershot: Avebury.

Yadov, V.A. (1977) (Ed), Sotsial’no-psikhologichesky Portet Inzhenera, Moscow: Mysl’.

Zobov, R.A. & Sugakova, L.I. (1990), ‘Spetsifika Formirovaniya Mirovozzreniya Studencheskoi Molodezhi v Usloviyakh Demokratizatsii i Perestroiki,` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy

AP P E NDI X A

Ranking of undergraduates' considerations about narrow professional qualities of a contemporary engineer according to the index of importance (index's value ranges between -1 and +1).

Personal Belarus England (Ib - Ie) Mantel-Haenszel's

qualities Ib RANK Ie RANK Î chi-squarea P

1. High level of theoretical

knowledge .60 2.0 .54 3.5 .06 1.01 NSb

2. Awareness of up-to-date achieve-ments of science & engineering .63 3.0 .59 5.0 .04 0.42 NS

3. Skills in practical application of knowledge .87 7.0 .76 7.0 .11 5.45 .019

4. Research & inventional activity .43 1.0 .27 1.0 .16 6.52 .0115. Ability in rational organisation

of the own work .82 6.0 .54 3.5 .28 41.71 .0006. Skill of self-improvement in

professional 'rigging` under rapid technological change .66 4.0 .52 2.0 .14 5.10 .014

7. Ability in team work organising and managerial skills .72 5.0 .73 6.0 .01 0.11 NS

Spearmen's rho .6847P= .045

a Here and elsewhere in the analogous tables Mantel-Haenszel's chi-square is applied as a more precise linear measure of association for ordinal data which are used to calculate indices.b Here and elsewhere in the other tables sign 'NS` (not significant) appears when p > .05



Table iiRanking of undergraduates' considerations about broad socio-professional qualities necessary for a contemporary engineer according to the index of importance (index's value ranges between +1 and -1)

Personal Belarus England (Ib - Ie) Mantel-Haenszel's

qualities Ib RANK Ie RANK Î chi-square P

1. Knowledge of arts, literature,music etc. .42 7.0 -.14 1.0 .56 49.08 .000

2. Deep professional knowledge .79 11.0 .61 11.0 .18 12.45 .0003. Skills in research & inventional

activity .30 4.0 .48 7.0 .18 7.43 .0064. Knowledge of economics & finance .40 5.5 .31 5.5 .09 1.70 NS5. Basic knowledge of social

sciences -.26 1.0 -.07 2.0 .19 5.51 .0196. Creative abilities, unorthodox

professional thinking, initiative .53 9.0 .60 10.0 .07 1.05 NS7. High standard of morals,

conformity with professional ethics .51 8.0 .28 4.0 .23 10.72 .0018. Knowledge of foreign language -.17 2.0 .16 3.0 .33 16.17 .0009. Ability in independent solving

of professional problems .67 10.0 .53 9.0 .14 2.02 NS10. Social activity -.09 3.0 .31 5.5 .40 20.41 .00011. Ecological awareness and

responsibility .40 5.5 .50 8.0 .10 2.03 NS

Spearmen's rho .6461P= .016



Table iiiThe impact of different factors/reasons on undergraduates' vocational choice according to the index of influence (index's value ranges between -1 and +1).

Factor or Belarus England (Ib - Ie) Mantel-Haenszel's

reason INDEXb INDEXe Î chi-square P

1. Importance of the profession to society -.55 -.03 .52 30.66 .000

2. Creative character of theprofession -.32 .15 .47 24.42 .000

3. Correspondence of the professionto one's abilities and interests -.15 .52 .67 41.07 .000

4. The profession provides high incomes -.59 .00 .59 43.60 .000

5. Specialisation in the secondaryschool -.81 -.16 .65 54.20 .000

6. Recommendations of the careerguidance service -.85 -.59 .26 13.55 .000

7. Family traditions or advice ofrelatives -.19 -.42 .23 4.36 .037

8. Example and/or advice of friends -.34 -.64 .30 9.29 .0029. Desire to receive higher

education .40 .35 .05 .25 NS10. Accidental circumstances -.16 -.66 .50 17.62 .000



A P P E N D I X BDendrograms presenting results of hierarchical cluster analysis of variables measuring undergraduates’

considerations about the broad socio-professional qualities of a contemporary engineer.

BELARUS

Dendrogram using Complete LinkageRescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S ELabel Num 0 5 10 15 20 25

+...................+...................+...................+...................+...................+IMECKN 4IMCRAB 6IMSOKNA ( i ) 5IMMOST 7IMCUKN 1IMFLKN 8IMECOR ( i i ) 11IMSOAC 10IMPRKN 2IMINAB ( i i i ) 9IMRESK 3

ENGLAND

Dendrogram using Complete LinkageRescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S ELabel Num 0 5 10 15 20 25

+...................+...................+...................+...................+...................+IMECKN 4IMSOKN 5MCUKN ( i ) 1IMMOST 7IMCRAB 6IMFLKN 8MECOR ( i i ) 11MSOAC 10IMRESK 3MINAB ( i i i ) 9IMPRKN 2

Key:

1. Knowledge of arts, literature, music etc. (IMCUKN)2. Deep Professional knowledge (IMPRKN)3. Skills in research & inventional activity (IMRESK)4. Knowledge of economics & finance (IMECKN)5. Basic knowledge of social sciences (IMSOKN)6. Creative abilities, unorthodox thinking, initiative (IMCRAB)7. High standard of morals, conformity with professional ethics (IMMOST)8. Knowledge of foreign language (IMFLKN)9. Ability in independent solving of professional problems (IMINAB)10. Social activity (IMSOAC)11. Ecological awareness and responsibility (IMECOR)

i, i i, i i i - Numbers of the obtained clusters


Documents

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary … · Web viewThe Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy by YURI A. ALEXEICHENKO