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
