Devdas
Menon
This
article was published in the Journal
of Technical Education, ISTE,
Vol.23, No. 1, pp. 38–43,
January 2000.
Abstract
Engineering
professionals may be classified
into two categories, Scientists
and Technicians, depending on
certain behavioural characteristics.
Although both may possess high
IQ, the Scientist is able to harness
his energies far more creatively
than the Technician is. The Scientist
is intrinsically motivated, seeks
to discover the true nature of
physical reality, possesses a
holistic outlook, and deeply enjoys
his work. On the contrary, the
Technician is deficiency-motivated,
lacks the spirit of scientific
enquiry, has a relatively narrow
outlook, and is content with putting
into application what is already
known. This paper attempts to
explore the main ingredients (such
as enquiry, enjoyment, creativity
and integrity) that make up the
Scientist’s temperament,
and suggests that engineering
education in general suffers for
want of Scientists as educators.
Examples are drawn from the fields
of structural engineering and
architecture, but the inferences
are generalised enough to be extended
to other engineering professions.
1. Introduction
There are, admittedly, shortcomings
when it comes to classifying people
(professionals, in this case)
into two watertight compartments.
But there are advantages in this
simplification, and in this instance
the merits of binary logic outweigh
the shortcomings. In this paper,
professionals (engineers, architects,
etc.) are classified into two
simple categories: Technicians
and Scientists (Zukav 1980). Technicians
constitute the run-of-the-mill
category, whereas Scientists constitute
the category of professionals
of exceptionally high quality.
Technicians, of course, constitute
the majority; Scientists are a
relatively rarer species. The
behavioural differences between
these two categories are markedly
pronounced, and an understanding
of these differences is important
in the field of education.
What makes a Scientist so different
from a Technician? Why are Scientists
so few in number? What can we
do in engineering education to
increase their number (assuming,
of course, that it is desirable
to do so!)? This paper attempts
to provide some answers to these
basic questions, with specific
reference to two professions,
viz., structural engineering and
architecture. The author’s
background as a teacher and consultant
in the area of structural engineering
is responsible for this limited
focus. However, the observations
and inferences made here are generalised
enough, to be meaningful to other
professions.
2. Scientist versus Technician
The terms, ‘Scientist’
and ‘Technician’,
are described rather lucidly by
Zukav (1980), with reference to
physicists, as follows:
"When most people say, ‘Scientist’,
they mean ‘Technician’.
A Technician is a highly trained
person whose job is to apply known
techniques and principles. He
deals with the known. A Scientist
is a person who seeks to know
the true nature of physical reality.
He deals with the unknown. In
short, Scientists discover, and
Technicians apply."
This interesting description,
aimed at categorising physicists,
may well be extended to engineers,
architects and other professionals.
The argument that engineering
is an ‘applied’ science
is of no relevance here, because
there is tremendous scope for
creativity even in the application
of an applied science. Creativity
implies innovation, and innovation
in engineering demands a scientific
temperament. Unfortunately, most
engineers and architects are found
wanting in scientific temperament.
They are trained to do routine
things, whose significance they
neither realise nor question.
They may be very intelligent,
but their vision is narrow, and
they fail to inject inspiration
and enthusiasm in their work naturally.
These are the Technicians. One
can see them everywhere.
Scientists, on the other hand,
are a relatively rare species,
amongst engineers as well as architects.
It is their basic nature not to
take things for granted. They
question, probe, discover and
create. Their creativity may take
physical form, or may be in the
form of original concepts. They
are driven by some peculiar intrinsic
motivation, which injects a dynamic
dimension to all their activities.
Their range of vision is broad,
generally transcending their fields
of specialisation. They are able
to discover, synthesise and manifest
in their own lives, a harmony
between Art and Science, and between
theory and practice.
3. Architect-Engineer
Interaction
3.1 Technician Level
Much is said and lamented about
the mutual conflicts that engage
architects and structural engineers
during the course of their interaction.
In the consultancy business, architects
and engineers generally tend to
view each other with suspicion,
and, at times, with condescension.
More often than not, this occurs
when the engineers lack ‘architectural
sense’, and when the architects
lack ‘engineering sense’.
In the eyes of the Technician-engineer,
the architect is a fanciful dreamer,
who likes to build castles in
the air, and is far removed from
reality. The Technician-architect,
on the other hand, views his counterpart
as being grossly unimaginative,
devoid of aesthetic sense, and
prone to the use of defensive
technical jargon when he fails
to deliver the goods. The result
of their interaction is a compromise
(invariably, more in favour of
the engineer than the architect),
and is arrived at after much wrangling.
This architect-engineer conflict
has been cogently expressed by
the famous ‘shell builder’,
Felix Candela, as follows (Faber
1960):
"The architect wants to maintain
his preconceived ideas, but has
no weapons to fight against the
scientific arguments of the engineer.
A dialogue is impossible between
two people who speak different
languages. The result of the struggle
is generally the same: science
prevails, and the final design
has generally lost the eventual
charm and fitness of detail dreamed
by the architect."
3.2 Scientist Level
It is only the Scientist-engineer
who can share the dream of the
Scientist-architect, and so succeed
in accomplishing it. Both are
conscious and appreciative of
the importance of teamwork and
symbiotic activity. They are aware
of the limitations in vision imposed
by their respective areas of specialisation,
and hence realise the complementary
nature of their activities. Unlike
the Technician-engineer, the Scientist-engineer
is inwardly grateful to the architect
for the challenges posed by him.
The challenge is viewed not as
a threat, but as a welcome opportunity.
Similarly, unlike the Technician-architect,
the Scientist-architect looks
forward to his interaction with
the engineer as a means towards
improving his design. Such an
architect has a relatively open
mind, realises the significance
of structure in architecture (Salvadori
1986), and seeks to capitalise
on the creative skills of his
counterpart. Indeed, many an architectural
masterpiece is also a structural
one; the structure is one with
the architecture.
In short, architects and engineers
may seem to be poles apart, but
fundamentally, they have much
in common in terms of their basic
mentality. They are either Technicians
or Scientists, and Technicians
and Scientists are the ones who
can be said to be poles apart!
4. Mediocrity in Technical
Education
What makes an architect or an
engineer? A technical qualification
in the form of a degree certificate.
It is tacitly assumed that the
four or five years of academic
experience in a technical institute
do the needful in preparing a
student in architecture and engineering.
The underlying assumption is that
passing examinations in various
subjects is an adequate measure
of one’s professional competence.
Hence, success in examinations
is viewed as a necessary and sufficient
condition for recruitment to various
positions, particularly in the
Government service.
The examination system, therefore,
assumes awesome importance in
society as a whole, particularly
in today’s highly competitive
‘rat race’ set-up.
Students, teachers, parents, the
Government — all are apparently
overpowered and brainwashed by
its import. Hence, it is but natural
that the process of learning and
teaching in many educational institutions
becomes geared mainly towards
exam-oriented instruction.
The ensuing result is a vast and
overwhelming ocean of mediocrity
— mediocrity in instruction,
mediocrity in research, mediocrity
in planning and design, and mediocrity
in execution. The emphasis is
on quantity, not quality; on Technicians,
not Scientists. This problem is
particularly severe in developing
countries, which are struggling
to keep abreast of the more developed
nations.
The problem gets magnified over
the years by the rapidly increasing
‘information explosion’,
which results in an overloading
of the curriculum to accommodate
more and more information. As
the pressure on the student builds
up, survival demands that he be
more selective and more exam-oriented
in his learning, in order to beat
the system. The student thus ends
up becoming more mediocre. It’s
a vicious circle!
Nevertheless, there are exceptional
individuals, who, by virtue of
their intrinsic nature, do not
fall into the rut of mediocrity.
These are the budding Scientists,
who are able to transcend the
pitfalls of the socio-educational
system. But the vast majority
of students not only lack the
qualities to react positively
against mediocrity, but are, in
fact, quite content to swim with
the current. These are the Technicians
— a self-propagating species.
Technicians have their place in
any profession, no doubt. But
it does not speak well of the
health of any profession, if Technicians
masquerade as Scientists and occupy
key positions for which they basically
lack competence. This is unfortunately
the situation in many organisations,
especially the ones in the public
sector. Most thinking people cannot
help but be conscious of this
problem; but only a few of them
are sensitive enough to do something
about it in their own organisations.
Scientists alone are capable of
perpetuating their unique culture.
Under their inspiring influence,
even Technicians undergo some
transformation and are able to
awaken and discover ‘Scientist’
faculties that lie latent in them.
Every Scientist, therefore, is
a born teacher. His teaching may
not be deliberate; it operates
as an invisible, but powerful,
influence.
The scientific temperament is
potentially latent in every intelligent
individual, and can be awakened
in a conducive environment. It
is evidently the function of the
educational system to provide
and nurture such an environment;
but this is sadly lacking in most
educational institutions, which
inadvertently encourage mediocrity.
Unless otherwise inspired, the
student is bound to be cast in
the Technician mould, and to transmit
this conditioning to his profession
and to the environment.
To achieve excellence in technical
education, and to avoid mediocrity,
we obviously need Scientists as
teachers. The so-called ‘teacher-training’
programmes operate under the assumption
that existing Technician-teachers
can be trained to improve their
performance. Perhaps, they can;
but not to such an extent as to
transform themselves into Scientist-teachers.
The scientific temperament needs
to be awakened early in life;
this cannot be done late in life.
5. Awakening the Scientific
Temperament
The peculiarity of the scientific
temperament is that it cannot
be forcibly induced; it requires
to be spontaneously activated.
Hence, the verb ‘awakening’
is appropriate here, rather than
‘cultivating’ or ‘attaining’.
The individual must discover an
aptitude for a profession that
he has either consciously chosen,
or which somehow has been thrust
on him. Aptitude implies (i) a
basic liking, plus (ii) an inherent
ability. If either of these two
components is missing, then the
process of education becomes burdensome.
If both components are missing,
then it can be quite a torture!
Faced with the latter situation,
the sensible course of action
would be to quit, and find an
alternative occupation —
ideally, for which one has a natural
calling. As the Nobel Laureate,
Isidor Rabi puts it: "It’s
too hard, and life too short,
to spend your time doing something
because somebody else has said
it’s important. You must
feel the thing yourself…"
The ability of students to score
good grades, and their liking
to do so, do not necessarily reflect
good aptitude. Often, it is a
mere reflection of their basic
intelligence, coupled with a motivation
driven by competition. Aptitude
has nothing to do with competition;
it must flourish even in the absence
of competition, and will do so
only if the student basically
enjoys what he is doing.
Awakening the scientific temperament
is all about (1) encouraging the
spirit of enquiry, (2) transmitting
enjoyment, (3) stimulating creativity,
(4) enhancing sensitivity and
intuition, (5) inspiring integrity,
and (6) inspiring motivation.
Let us examine each of these components
in some detail.
1. Enquiry
Problem-solving and decision-making
are the two basic skills required
of any professional. However,
these skills differ significantly,
both in degree and kind, in Scientists
and Technicians.
The Scientist’s approach
to a problem (any problem) is
based on the question ‘Why?’,
whereas the Technician’s
approach to the same problem is
based on the question ‘How?’.
The Technician is concerned about
how to solve the problem, whereas
the Scientist is keen on understanding
why it is a problem in the first
place. To the Scientist, the problem
is something interesting that
needs to be addressed fundamentally
(and often, immediately). To the
Technician, the problem is something
bothersome that needs to be got
rid of (unless, perhaps, there
is an economic consideration involved!).
In short, the spirit of scientific
enquiry is lacking in the Technician.
Hence, his solutions are bound
to be second-hand and routine,
devoid of originality and creative
content. This approach is usually
an outcome of a training (a bad
habit, one might say) imbibed
during the course of one’s
formal education. It becomes difficult
to get rid of this conditioning
and to be able to arouse the spirit
of enquiry later in life.
Structural design, for example,
is taught in engineering schools,
with reference to codes (standards).
However, the codes are not meant
to be used as a substitute for
basic understanding and engineering
judgement. The student must learn
to question codes — as indeed,
he must, nearly everything in
life! (Pillai and Menon 1998).
Unfortunately, the Technician-designer
falls prey to the all-too-common
habit of blindly following codes.
Similarly, blind application of
conventional methods of analysis
and blind use of software packages,
without understanding their bases,
can sometimes lead to error and
catastrophe. The mere fact that
a structure is standing (i.e.,
not yet collapsed) is not always
a testimony of structural engineering
skills. Indeed, many structures
stand, not because of good engineering,
but in spite of bad engineering.
Interestingly enough, every individual
would have experienced the spirit
of scientific enquiry during early
childhood. How spontaneously children
pose questions about things that
they do not understand, but are
eager to! With the passage of
years, however, they become more
and more restrained and inhibited
in their questioning — partly
because a positive response is
not always forthcoming, and partly
because of a growing sense of
self-consciousness. The loss of
the freedom to question psychologically
conditions the student, represses
his enquiry, blunts his intellect,
and prevents the full and free
blossoming of his personality.
Under this situation, what is
the role of the teacher in awakening
the student? Zukav (1980) gives
us a wonderful example:
"A Master teaches essence.
When the essence is perceived,
he teaches what is necessary to
expand the perception. The Master
does not speak of gravity until
the student stands in wonder at
the flower petal falling to the
ground. He does not speak of mathematics
until the student says, ‘There
must be a way to express this
more simply’. In short,
the Master does not teach, but
the student learns."
This ideal style of teaching may
not be easily practicable in the
present-day system of formal education,
due to the severe constraints
involved in conveying a large
volume of information within a
limited period to a large number
of students. However, it is still
within the teacher’s capacity
to kindle interest in the student,
and to de-condition his ‘set’
mind. For this, the teacher himself
may have to pre-empt and pose
questions, rather than wait for
the stimulus to emerge from the
students. Despite the constraints,
the Scientist-teacher remains
a Master, and functions in his
own creative style. True, he may
not succeed in covering fully
the prescribed syllabus, but he
may well succeed in uncovering
it! He realises that the curriculum
is essentially a vehicle to awaken
the latent intellectual faculties
in the student, and not an end
in itself. The emphasis is on
how to teach, not what to teach;
on self-discovery, not spoon-feeding;
and on long-term benefits, not
short-term goals.
2. Enjoyment
The spirit of scientific enquiry
is usually coupled with a sense
of intense enjoyment. There is
a joy in finding answers to one’s
questions, and more so, if this
is achieved by dint of one’s
own effort.
There is another kind of joy associated,
not with the process of learning,
but with the process of doing
— the so-called job satisfaction.
Many people do experience such
joy occasionally, if not periodically.
Scientists, unlike Technicians,
experience such joy so frequently,
that it becomes a part of their
nature. It is not the kind of
joy that comes to us when we make
money or when we achieve fame.
It is a very private kind of joy
that does not depend on others.
But it is a joy that could possibly
be transmitted to others, as happens
when one encounters a Scientist-teacher.
On the contrary, a Technician-teacher
is one whose classes are likely
to be dull and boring, precisely
because he has failed to discover
the joy in what he is teaching.
Is one able to enjoy the process
of learning, the process of teaching,
the process of working in one’s
profession for no ostensible reason
— not for marks or money
or status, but simply, for the
sheer joy and beauty in it? There
has to be something intrinsic
in the profession to sustain one’s
interest and enjoyment; otherwise,
one would easily tire of it. This
suggests that there must be something
new in it every time one looks
at one’s work. The discovery
of ‘newness’, again
and again, engenders creativity.
3. Creativity
Creativity is the most striking
and illuminating characteristic
of Scientists. Some psychologists
define creativity as a product
of fluency, flexibility and originality.
Therefore, mere creation (such
as the construction of structures)
does not necessarily indicate
creativity — especially
if it is routine, unoriginal,
or simply new for the sake of
novelty. A creative solution must
be appropriate and relevant to
its context.
It appears that there is more
scope and greater need for creativity
in architecture than in structural
engineering; but this is not necessarily
so. It is perhaps more accurate
to say that it is easier for an
architect to express his creativity
than it is for an engineer. The
engineering profession, being
so demanding in terms of safety
and economy, tends to restrict
avenues for innovation and experimentation.
Technician-engineers find themselves
so bound by codes and specifications
that they use these as a pretext
to rationalise their second-hand,
stereotyped designs and construction
practices. The Scientist-engineers,
on the other hand, make their
own rules and have their own unique
ways of solving design problems,
having well grasped the limitations
and assumptions underlying accepted
knowledge.
This probably explains why creative
people are found to be highly
intelligent. However, it is noteworthy
that there are so many Technicians
who possess high IQs, and yet
lack creative imagination. Bound
as they are by timidity, conventionality,
anxiety and fear, they confine
their energies to imitating, polishing,
rearranging and generally tinkering
around with what is already known.
In contrast, Scientists are not
only not threatened by the unknown,
but they also relish its ambiguity,
newness and mystery.
4. Sensitivity and Intuition
Sensitivity is a subtle and significant
dimension of the mentality of
the Scientist. It denotes a feeling
of fine-tuning in a specific direction,
leading to some kind of resonance.
This resonance is usually accompanied
by a feeling of wonder and joy.
In the words of Einstein, "The
most beautiful thing we can experience
is the mysterious; it is the source
of all art and science."
Scientists periodically experience
this almost mystic feeling of
wonder. Technicians, on the other
hand, rarely have such experiences.
The ‘aesthetic’ sense
is the most appropriate expression
of sensitivity. Many people believe
that this is an important requirement
in architects. Clients often demand
an ‘exciting elevation’
from the architect, without quite
knowing what it means! The aesthetic
sense does not relate to the visual
beauty of some elements, but the
beauty in the concept as a whole.
It is derived from an experience
of order and wholeness. Hence,
even a simple mathematical equation
can be the source of profound
and delightful experience to one
who is sensitive to its meaning.
The Scientist makes a great and
inspiring teacher if he is able
to convey his insight to his students.
‘Structural sense’
is an expression of sensitivity
familiar to Scientist-engineers.
It establishes a direct experience
of the load-transfer mechanism,
and of the relative stability,
strength and stiffness of the
structure. It is an experience
that usually precedes, and sometimes
follows, mathematical calculations,
and provides a necessary bridge
between quantitative and qualitative
knowledge. Technician-engineers
mostly lack this ‘feel’
for structure, although they may
have expertise in accurately analysing
large and complex structures,
and in calculating stresses and
displacements to the nth degree
of accuracy.
Sensitivity not only gives the
satisfaction of perceiving the
truth, but it also serves as a
warning bell when something is
seen out of place. The range of
sensitivity may extend, in structural
engineering, to areas such as
sensitivity to detailing, sensitivity
to economy, and sensitivity to
ease in construction.
Sensitivity is the forerunner
of intuition; only sensitive people
can be intuitive. Intuition is
a kind of sixth sense that immediately
perceives the truth of things
without reasoning and analysis.
It has a peculiar strength to
stand on its own, without the
prop of accepted convention or
bookish knowledge. No doubt, considerable
sensitive experiences are required
to enable the full awakening of
intuition, which results from
a synthesis of various sense perceptions.
The word ‘intuition’
has been much used in connection
with Felix Candela. As Candela
himself puts it (Faber 1960):
"It is always simple to explain
the way you have done things after
you have done them; but in many
cases, such explanations are untrue,
because one does not know exactly
how one reached a certain point
in one’s thinking. When
it comes to be explained, it can
be seen clearly as a whole; the
logical process is always an afterthought."
Intuition is too subtle and abstract
a phenomenon to be communicated.
Unlike sensitivity, it cannot
be consciously awakened. However,
one who has trained oneself regularly
to be sensitive, is very likely
to receive intuition.
5. Integrity
The scientific temperament of
an individual is in many ways
linked to his moral character.
The Scientist is basically a truth-seeker.
The importance of realising the
truth, of getting to the bottom
of things, is self-evident to
him. Therefore, it is his basic
nature not only to be intellectually
honest, but also to reform and
adapt in the light of the perceived
truth. This implies mental alertness,
sensitivity and perception to
a degree well beyond the range
of the unreflecting Technician
mind. In later years, the Scientist’s
search for truth is likely to
spill over to ‘eternal questions’,
that are ordinarily described
as ethical or philosophical.
The term ‘integrity’
is appropriate here, as we seek
to describe a character of incorruptible
quality and a vision that is holistic.
Integrity is, admittedly, a scarce
commodity in the present-day world.
Corruption has infected society
like a cancerous growth, and formal
education has done little to check
its damaging influence. Of course,
sermonising on ‘professional
ethics’ and ‘professional
commitment’ is in vogue,
but that has not really helped.
There is often a hollowness in
these terms, and one is reminded
of the poetic words of T.S. Eliot:
"We are the hollow men, we
are the stuffed men, leaning together,
headpiece filled with straw".
The Scientist, with his holistic
vision, realises that ethics is
a matter of inner realisation,
and not adherence to external
norms. Personal ethics must precede,
and so be compatible with, the
so-called ‘professional
ethics’.
However, we must recognise that
most professionals are Technicians,
not Scientists, and therefore
emphasis on professional ethics
is relevant and meaningful in
today’s context.
Ethics must somehow find a place
(informal) in one’s formal
education. Integrity is naturally
revealed in the teacher to the
extent he has it and sees its
importance. It is the Scientist-teacher
alone who is capable of awakening
and kindling a passion for truth-seeking
in students, by integrating these
thought processes with the spirit
of scientific enquiry.
6. Motivation
Enquiry, enjoyment, creativity,
sensitivity, intuition and integrity
— these are seen to be the
main ingredients of the scientific
temperament. They are all inter-related,
and come into synthesised being
when certain energies are directed
towards them. How are these energies
harnessed in a Scientist, and
why is this not possible in a
Technician?
These pertinent questions are
addressed by the psychologist,
Abraham Maslow, in his famous
theory of motivation based on
need-gratification. According
to Maslow (1970), "Healthy
people are so different from average
ones, not only in degree but in
kind as well, that they generate
two different kinds of psychology.
The motivation of ordinary men
is a striving for the basic need
gratification that they lack.
But for healthy people, motivation
is just character growth, expression
and maturation; in a word, ‘self-actualisation’."
Scientists, as described in this
paper, would well qualify to belong
to Maslow’s category of
‘healthy people’;
Technicians are the ‘average
ones’, driven by the basic
needs of security, money, status
and power. Technicians need incentives
to generate work; they are ‘deficiency-motivated’.
Scientists, on the other hand,
are intrinsically motivated, or,
to use Maslow’s expression,
‘growth-motivated’;
they cannot help growing and maturing,
rather effortlessly. They represent
a high state of human evolution,
where truth is sought for the
sake of truth, knowledge for the
sake of knowledge, and art for
the sake of art. Technicians have
neither the powers of concentration
of Scientists nor their capacity
to enjoy their work, because much
of their mental energies are dissipated
by their own personal pettiness
and other distractions.
It is the task of the educationist
to enable students to discover
themselves, their needs and their
potentialities. The scientific
temperament in the ‘have-nots’
can be awakened, not by always
doling out incentives, but by
enabling them to recognise, accept
and fulfil their inherent deficiencies.
6. Conclusions
An attempt has been made here
to understand the qualities that
distinguish high-quality engineering
professionals from the mediocre
ones. The terms, Scientists and
Technicians have been used to
describe the two categories. The
presence or absence of a scientific
temperament determines whether
these professionals are Scientists
or Technicians. Characteristics
such as scientific enquiry, enjoyment,
creativity, sensitivity, intuition,
integrity and motivation make
the difference between the Scientist
and the Technician. Unfortunately,
these are aspects that are often
overlooked by engineering educators.
If the meaning of education is
the full and free blossoming of
the individual, and the wholesome
realisation of the individual’s
potentialities, then Scientists
can be said to be properly educated.
Technicians, on the other hand,
are not properly educated because
they have not realised their full
potential.
It is evident that our engineering
education system suffers for want
of Scientists as teachers. In
the face of an overwhelming demand
for engineering education in India,
and the widespread mushrooming
of engineering colleges, we end
up sacrificing quality for the
sake of quantity. We obviously
need to ensure that we have more
of Scientists as faculty in our
engineering colleges.
References
