what makes a profession?

OK - I forgot to share this today - so I'm sticking it here. Below is a characterization of what makes a profession (by Gardner and Shulman, 2005). How does it relate to the discussion today? How is it useful for our questions? Oh, and by the way - it was developed by looking at professions broadly (teaching, medicine, law, etc.).

• A commitment to serve in the interest of clients in particular and the welfare of society in general
• A body of theory or special knowlege with its own principles of growth and reorganization
• A specialized set of professional skills, practices, and performances unique to the profession
• The developed capacity to render judgments with integrity under conditions of both technical and ethical uncertainty
• An organized approach to learning from experience both individually and collectively, and thus, of growing new knowledge from the context of practice
• The development of a professional community responsible for the oversight and monitoring of quality in both practice and professional education

Thought questions for wk 7: Noble, Layton, Gieryn

Some questions for you to ponder in time for class this Thursday...

How do Noble and Layton *together* argue how the engineering profession evolved? What were the major signposts each used? What were the different historical steps? How has engineering as a "profession" evolved over time, as described by each?

How might the tool of "boundaries" be helpful in thinking through these histories?

See you on Thursday with your thinking caps on.

What is engineering? What is not engineering?

I agree with Noah that engineering should be defined more uniquely. When I need to strictly define the scope of X, I expect the definition to be so clear and unambiguous that everything in the world should either inside or outside X. No exception. So far, I don't think I can define engineering in this way.

"Is drawing engineering?" As raised by Sensen in class, I was also confused by such a question. But according to Koen's argument, engineering method is the strategy for causing the best change in a poorly understood situation within the available resources. Light changes. Fixed-size canvas. Artists try their best. The model may not pose the same all the time. Drawing shows all characteristics of engineering: change, resource, best and uncertainty. From my perspective, however, these four criteria serve as evidences rather than determinants to judge whether Y belongs to engineering. Koen may agree with me because he described these four words as characteristics of an engineering problem. Having Taken Bucciarelli's argument about social components of engineering, I am still not able to define engineering precisely. Do we really have such a definition?

Another question confusing me is that in Jonassen's paper, I lost connections between 12 themes and 6 implications for engineering educators. How can those 12 be matched to the 6 improvements?