Chemical engineering is the branch of engineering that applies the physical sciences (e.g., chemistryand physics) and/or life sciences (e.g., biology, microbiology and biochemistry) together withmathematics and economics to processes that convert raw materials or chemicals into more useful or valuable forms. In addition, modern chemical engineers are also concerned with pioneering valuable materials and related techniques – which are often essential to related fields such asnanotechnology, fuel cells and biomedical engineering.[1] Within chemical engineering, two broad subgroups include 1) design, manufacture, and operation of plants and machinery in industrial chemical and related processes ("chemical process engineers"); and 2) development of new or adapted substances for products ranging from foods and beverages to cosmetics to cleaners to pharmaceutical ingredients, among many other products ("chemical product engineers").

Contents

  [hide]

1 Etymology

2 History

o 2.1 New concepts and innovations

o 2.2 Lag and environmental awareness

o 2.3 Recent progress

3 Concepts

o 3.1 Chemical reaction engineering

o 3.2 Plant design

o 3.3 Process design

o 3.4 Transport phenomena

4 Applications and practice

5 Related fields and topics

6 See also

7 References

8 Bibliography

[edit]Etymology

George E. Davis

A 1996 British Journal for the History of Science article cites James F. Donnelly for mentioning a 1839 reference to chemical engineering in relation to the production of sulfuric acid.[2] In the same paper however, George E. Davis, anEnglish consultant, was credited for having coined the term.[3] The History of Science in United States: An Encyclopedia puts this at around 1890.[4] "Chemical engineering", describing the use of mechanical equipment in the chemical industry, became common vocabulary in England after 1850.[5] By 1910, the profession, "chemical engineer", was already in common use in Britain and the United States.[6]

[edit]History

Main article: History of chemical engineering

Chemical engineering emerged upon the development of unit operations, a fundamental concept of the discipline chemical engineering. Most authors agree that Davis invented unit operations if not substantially developed it.[7] He gave a series of lectures on unit operations at the Manchester Technical School (University of Manchester today) in 1887, considered to be one of the earliest such about chemical engineering.[8] Three years before Davis' lectures,Henry Edward Armstrong taught a degree course in chemical engineering at the City and Guilds of London Institute. Armstrong's course "failed simply because its graduates ... were not especially attractive to employers." Employers of the time would have rather hired chemists andmechanical engineers.[4] Courses in chemical engineering offered by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States, Owen's College in Manchester, England and University College London suffered under similar circumstances.[9]

Students inside an industrial chemistry laboratory at MIT

Starting from 1888,[10] Lewis M. Norton taught at MIT the first chemical engineering course in the United States. Norton's course was contemporaneous and essentially similar with Armstrong's course. Both courses, however, simply merged chemistry and engineering subjects. "Its practitioners had difficulty convincing engineers that they were engineers and chemists that they were not simply chemists." [4] Unit operations was introduced into the course by William Hultz Walker in 1905.[11] By the early 1920s, unit operations became an important aspect of chemical engineering at MIT and other US universities, as well as at Imperial College London.[12] The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), established in 1908, played a key role in making chemical engineering considered an independent science, and unit operations central to chemical engineering. For instance, it defined chemical engineering to be a "science of itself, the basis of which is ... unit operations" in a 1922 report; and with which principle, it had published a list of academic institutions which offered "satisfactory" chemical engineering courses.[13] Meanwhile, promoting chemical engineering as a distinct science in Britain lead to the establishment of the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) in 1922.[14] IChemE likewise helped make unit operations considered essential to the discipline.[15]

[edit]New concepts and innovationsBy the 1940s, it became clear that unit operations alone was insufficient in developing chemical reactors. While the predominance of unit operations in chemical engineering courses in Britain and the United States continued until the 1960s, transport phenomena started to experience greater focus.[16] Along with other novel concepts, such process systems engineering (PSE), a "second paradigm" was defined.[17]

[18] Transport phenomena gave an analytical approach to chemical engineering[19] while PSE focused on its synthetic elements, such as control system andprocess design.[20] Developments in chemical engineering before and after World War II were mainly incited by the petrochemical industry,[21]however, advances in other fields were made as well. Advancements in biochemical engineering in the 1940s, for example, found application in thepharmaceutical industry, and allowed for the mass production of various antibiotics, including penicillin and streptomycin.[22] Meanwhile, progress in polymer science in the 1950s paved way for the "age of plastics".[23]

[edit]Lag and environmental awarenessThe years after the 1950s are viewed[by whom?] to have lacked major chemical innovations.[24] Additional uncertainty was presented by declining prices of energy and raw materials between 1950 and 1973. Concerns regarding the safety and environmental impact of large-scale chemical manufacturing facilities were also raised during this period. Silent Spring, published in 1962, alerted its readers to the harmful effects of DDT, a potent insecticide[citation needed]. The 1974 Flixborough disaster in the United Kingdom resulted in 28 deaths, as well as damage to a chemical plant and three nearby villages[citation needed]. The 1984 Bhopal disaster in India resulted in almost 4,000 deaths[citation needed]. These incidents, along with other incidents, affected the reputation of the trade as industrial safety and environmental protection were given more focus.[25] In response, the IChemE required safety to be part of every degree course that it accredited after 1982. By the 1970s, legislation and monitoring agencies were instituted in various countries, such as France, Germany, and the United States.[26]

[edit]Recent progressAdvancements in computer science found applications designing and managing plants, simplifying calculations and drawings that previously had to be done manually. The completion of the Human Genome Project is also seen as a major development, not only advancing chemical engineering

but genetic engineering and genomics as well.[27] Chemical engineering principles were used to produce DNA sequences in large quantities.[28] While the application of chemical engineering principles to these fields only began in the 1990s, Rice University researchers see this as a trend towards biotechnology.[29]

[edit]Concepts

Part of a series on

Chemical Engineering

History of

Chemical Engineering

General Concepts

Chemical industry

Chemical engineer

Chemical process

Unit operations

Chemical kinetics

Transport phenomena

Unit processes

Chemical plant

Chemical reactor

Separation processes

Areas

Heat transfer

Mass transfer

Fluid mechanics

Process design

Chemical thermodynamics

Chemical reaction engineering

Process control systems

Other

Outline of chemical engineering

Index of chemical engineering articles

Category: Chemical engineering

V

T

E

Chemical engineering involves the application of several principles. Key concepts are presented below.

[edit]Chemical reaction engineeringMain article: Chemical reaction engineering

Chemical reactions engineering involves managing plant processes and conditions to ensure optimal plant operation. Chemical reaction engineers construct models for reactor analysis and design using laboratory data and physical parameters, such as chemical thermodynamics, to solve problems and predict reactor performance.[30]

[edit]Plant designChemical engineering design concerns the creation of plans and specification, and income projection of plants. Chemical engineers generate designs according to the clients needs. Design is limited by a number of factors, including funding, government regulations and safety standards. These constraints dictate a plant's choice of process, materials and equipment.[31]

[edit]Process designMain article: Process design

A unit operation is a physical step in an individual chemical engineering process. Unit operations (such as crystallization, drying and evaporation) are used to prepare reactants, purifying and separating its products, recycling unspent reactants, and controlling energy transfer in reactors.[32] On the other hand, a unit process is the chemical equivalent of a unit operation. Along with unit operations, unit processes constitute a process operation. Unit processes (such as nitration and oxidation) involve the conversion of material by biochemical, thermochemical and other means. Chemical engineers responsible for these are called process engineers.[33]

[edit]Transport phenomenaMain article: Transport phenomena

Transport phenomena occur frequently in industrial problems. These include fluid dynamics, heat transfer and mass transfer, which mainly concernmomentum transfer, energy transfer and transport of chemical species respectively. Basic equations for describing the three transport phenomena in the macroscopic, microscopic and molecular levels are very similar. Thus, understanding transport phenomena requires thorough understanding of mathematics.[34]

[edit]Applications and practice

Chemical engineers use computers to manage automated systems in plants.[35]

Chemical engineers "develop economic ways of using materials and energy"[36] as opposed to chemists who are more interested in the basic composition of materials and synthesizing products from such [citation

needed]. Chemical engineers use chemistry and engineering to turn raw materials into usable products, such as medicine, petrochemicals and plastics. They are also involved in waste managementand research. Both applied and research facets make extensive use of computers.[35]

Operators in a chemical plant using an older analog control board, seen in Germany, 1986.

A chemical engineer may be involved in industry or university research where they are tasked in designing and performing experiments to create new and better ways of production, controlling pollution, conserving resources and making these processes safer. They may be involved in designing and constructing plants as a project engineer. In this field, the chemical engineer uses their knowledge in selecting plant equipment and the optimum method of production to minimize costs and increase profitability. After its construction, they may help in upgrading its equipment. They may also be involved in its daily operations.[37]

[edit]Related fields and topics

Today, the field of chemical engineering is a diverse one, covering areas from biotechnology andnanotechnology to mineral processing.

Biochemical engineering

Bioinformatics

Biomedical engineering

Biomolecular engineering

Heat transfer

Industrial gas

Industrial catalysts

Mass transfer

Process design

Process development

Process Systems Engineering

Process miniaturization

Biotechnology

Ceramics

Chemical process modeling

Chemical Technologist

Chemical reactor

Chemical weapons

Cheminformatics

Computational fluid dynamics

Corrosion engineering

Cost estimation

Electrochemistry

Environmental engineering

Earthquake engineering

Fluid dynamics

Food engineering

Fuel cell

Materials science

Metallurgy

Microfluidics

Mineral processing

Nanotechnology

Natural environment

Natural gas processing

Nuclear reprocessing

Oil exploration

Oil refinery

Pharmaceutical engineering

Plastics engineering

Polymers

Process control

Paper engineering

Safety engineering

Semiconductor device fabrication

Separation processes  (see also: separation of mixture

Crystallization processes

Distillation processes

Membrane processes

Textile engineering

Thermodynamics

Transport phenomena

Unit operations

Water technology

Chemical engineerFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemical engineers design, construct and operate plants

Part of a series on

Chemical Engineering

History of

Chemical Engineering

General Concepts

Chemical industry

Chemical engineer

Chemical process

Unit operations

Chemical kinetics

Transport phenomena

Unit processes

Chemical plant

Chemical reactor

Separation processes

Areas

Heat transfer

Mass transfer

Fluid mechanics

Process design

Chemical thermodynamics

Chemical reaction engineering

Process control systems

Other

Outline of chemical engineering

Index of chemical engineering articles

Category: Chemical engineering

V

T

E

In the field of engineering, a chemical engineer is the profession in which one works principally in thechemical

industry to convert basic raw materials into a variety of products, and deals with the design and operation of

plants and equipment to perform such work.[1] In general, a chemical engineer is one who applies and uses

principles of chemical engineering in any of its various practical applications; these often include 1) design,

manufacture, and operation of plants and machinery in industrial chemical and related processes ("chemical

process engineers"); 2) development of new or adapted substances for products ranging from foods and

beverages to cosmetics to cleaners to pharmaceutical ingredients, among many other products ("chemical

product engineers"); and 3) development of new technologies such as fuel cells,hydrogen

power and nanotechnology, as well as working in fields wholly or partially derived from Chemical Engineering

such as materials science, polymer engineering, and biomedical engineering.

Contents

[hide]

1 History

2 Overview

3 Employment and Salaries

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

[edit]History

The term appeared in print in 1839, though from the context it suggests a person with mechanical

engineering knowledge working in the chemical industry.[2] In 1880, George E. Davis wrote in a letter to

Chemical News 'A Chemical Engineer is a person who possesses chemical and mechanical knowledge, and

who applies that knowledge to the utilisation, on a manufacturing scale, of chemical action.' He proposed the

name Society of Chemical Engineers, for what was in fact constituted as theSociety of Chemical Industry. At

the first General Meeting of the Society in 1882, some 15 of the 300 members described themselves as

chemical engineers, but the Society's formation of a Chemical Engineering Group in 1918 attracted about 400

members.[3]

In 1905 a publication called The Chemical Engineer was founded in the USA, and in 1908 the American

Institute of Chemical Engineers was established.[4]

In 1924 the Institution of Chemical Engineers adopted the following definition 'A chemical engineer is a

professional man experienced in the design, construction and operation of plant and works in which matter

undergoes a change of state and composition.'[5] (The first female member joined in 1942.)[6]

As can be seen from the later definition, the occupation is not limited to the chemical industry, but more

generally the process industries, or other situations in which complex physical and/or chemical processes are

to be managed.

In 1951 the President of the Institution of Chemical Engineers said in his Presidential Address "I believe most

of us would be willing to regard Edward Charles Howard (1774-1816) as the first chemical engineer of any

eminence".[7] Others have suggested Johann Rudolf Glauber (1604–1670) for his development of processes for

the manufacture of the major industrial acids.[8]

[edit]Overview

Historically, the chemical engineer has been primarily concerned with process engineering. The modern

discipline of chemical engineering, however, encompasses much more than just process engineering.

Chemical engineers are now engaged in the development and production of a diverse range of products, as

well as in commodity and specialty chemicals. These products include high performance materials needed

foraerospace, automotive, biomedical, electronic, environmental and military applications. Examples include

ultra-strong fibers, fabrics, adhesivesand composites for vehicles, bio-compatible materials for implants and

prosthetics, gels for medical applications, pharmaceuticals, and films with special dielectric, optical

or spectroscopic properties for opto-electronic devices. Additionally, chemical engineering is often intertwined

with biologyand biomedical engineering. Many chemical engineers work on biological projects such as

understanding biopolymers (proteins) and mapping the human genome.

[edit]Employment and Salaries

In the United States of America, the Department of Labor estimated in 2008 the number of chemical engineers

to be 31,000. According to a 2011 salary survey by the American Institution of Chemical Engineers (AIChE),

the median annual salary for a chemical engineer was approximately $110,000.[9] In one salary survey,

chemical engineering was found to be highest-paying degree for first employment of college graduates.[10] Chemical engineering  has been successively ranked in the Top 2 places in the Most Lucrative Degrees

Survey by CNN Money in theUnited States of America.[11][12][13] In the UK, the Institution of Chemical

Engineers 2006 Salary Survey reported an average salary of approximately £53,000, with a starting salary for a

graduate averaging £24,000.[14] Chemical engineering is a male-dominated field: as of 2009, only 17.1% of

professional chemical engineers are women.[15] However, that trend is expected to shift as the number of

female students in the field continues to increase.[16]

[edit]See also

Engineering portal

American Institute of Chemical Engineers  (AIChE)

Distillation

Fluid dynamics

Heat transfer

History of chemical engineering

Institution of Chemical Engineers  (IChemE)

List of chemical engineering societies

List of chemical engineers

Mass transfer

Process control

Process design (chemical engineering)

Process engineering

Process miniaturization

Unit operations

Chemfluence

WikiProject: Chemical and Bio Engineering

[edit]References

1. ̂  Licker, Mark, D. (2003). Dictionary of Engineering", McGraw-Hill, 2nd Ed.

2. ̂  Ure, Andrew (1839) A Dictionary of Arts Manufactures and Mines, London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green &

Longman, page 1220

3. ̂  Colin Duvall and Sean F, Johnston (2000) Scaling Up: The Institution of Chemical Engineers and the Rise of a

New Profession Kluwer Academic Publishers

4. ̂  John C. Olsen (December 1932),   Chemical Engineering As A Profession: Origin and Early Growth of the

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

5. ̂  Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers volume 2 page 23 (1924)

6. ̂  Colin Duvall and Sean F, Johnston (2000)Scaling Up: The Institution of Chemical Engineers and the Rise of a

New Profession Kluwer Academic Publishers

7. ̂  Transactions of the IChemE (1951) Volume 29 page 163

8. ̂  Herman Skolnik in W. F. Furter (ed) (1982) A Century of Chemical Engineering ISBN 0-306-40895-3 page 230

9. ̂  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Chemical Engineers

10. ̂  Chemical Engineering Ranked Highest Paying Degree, Department of Chemical Engineering, Princeton

University, February 15, 2006

11. ̂  [1], 2009

12. ̂  [2], 2006

13. ̂  [3], 2007

14. ̂  Institution of Chemical Engineers Annual Review 2006

15. ̂  "Chemical Engineer Careers: Employment & Salary Trends for Aspiring Chemical Engineers".

CollegeDegreeReport.com.

16. ̂  http://www.intstudy.com/articles/sl275a43.htm

[edit]External links

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (USA)

Institution of Chemical Engineers (UK)

Canadian Society for Chemical Engineers

Engineers Australia (AUS)

[hide]

V

T

E

Chemical Engineering Topics

History History of chemical engineering

Concepts

Unit operations

Unit processes

Chemical engineer

Chemical process

Unit operations

Momentum transfer

Heat transfer

Mass transfer

Mechanical operations

Unit process

Chemical reaction engineering

Chemical kinetics

Chemical process modeling

Branches

Process design

Fluid mechanics

Chemical plant Design

Chemical thermodynamics

Transport phenomena

*More*

Others

Outline of chemical engineering

Index of chemical engineering articles

Education for Chemical Engineers

List of chemical engineers

List of chemical engineering societies

List of chemical process simulators

Category

Portal:Engineering

One's philosophy as a student is to simply assimilate knowledge. Under no circumstance shall a student deviate from a simple and humble life. Respect and devotion for elders, parents and

teachers is a must and irreverence to anyone a taboo. The Chinese, the Japanese and the Indians have formulated strigent rules for students as part of their pedagogical philosophies. There, students could get free boarding and lodging till they left. The instant they deviated from the generations-long customs, they lost all sacred privileges from the society.

If there is anything else that you can do and be happy, do that.  If there is nothing else that you can do and be happy, then come join us.  You'll love it.  But being a graduate student is a very difficult way to live.  Consider the decision with great care.  Graduate school takes more time, energy and thought than new grad students ever thought possible.  A Ph.D. is a massive undertaking that exceeds all predictions and estimates concerning the resources you have and will need. Reconsider your decision to pursue a Ph.D.  The job market in most fields is poorer than your professors will lead you to believe.  You could be making a decent living or making the world a better place in the years that you'll be scraping out a living doing arcane research and teaching for a fraction of what professors are paid for the same work.   Also, in writing your dissertation, prepare to be alone. You should enter graduate school because you enjoy whatever it is that you are studying and be fully aware of the difficulty in finding jobs in academia.  You should ask yourself whether you would want a doctoral degree in your field of study even if you could not get a job directly applicable to what you got your degree in?  If you would not want the degree without the assurance of a job in your field you should probably not go to grad school. Be very clear and realistic about your employment opportunities after graduating, both within and without academia. Make sure you have a dissertation topic you are willing to pursue each and every day, because it will consume most of your time for at least 2 years. Answer the following question honestly:  When I have some spare time, do I enjoy thinking about (fill in discipline and dissertation topic) or is there something I would rather be doing?Use three faculty members at three different stages of a full career as models for your own development:  Learn about their backgrounds, assess

where they are in their careers, and how they got there.  Then, answer following question:  Is this the kind of career I want for myself? Attend professional conferences in your area to decide if you can imagine yourself participating in them for many years. Be sure to be interested enough in the subject to guarantee that you don't regret time spent in its pursuit.  Employment in the field is not guaranteed, but the pursuit of the graduate program can be an invigorating experience. Finding an advisor who is fun to work with can be vital, and there is a world of intellectual activity in the university outside the confines of one's own department. 

 

Investigate the program thoroughly19.2% of the philosophy students surveyed offered advice

about this topic. Seek as much information about prospective departments as possible,  particularly from faculty advisors who have a broad knowledge of the field.  It is often hard to know which schools would best suit a student's interests from the more general information available. Make sure you know what kind of a political climate exists in your department and to talk to graduate students in the department about how they feel they are treated by the faculty in general. If you are choosing between departments of rather similar ranking, you should choose based on (1) where you would be happy living and (2) overall atmosphere of department (the extent that you can determine it).  Do not choose based on individual faculty members and their particular interests, because faculty members move; because you may discover that you can't get along with them; because they likely won't spend that much time on you; and because your own interests will change.  This advice is based on my experience in my current and previous programs. Find out clear information about average length of time it takes to complete the Ph.D. and find out about prospects for academic employment.  Think about whether the commitment is one you are willing to make.

Inquire about which advisors work closely with students and help them complete their work in a timely fashion.Make attempts to meet a range of faculty members (even outside of classes) so that you will have a clearer picture of opportunities available within your department. Visit school before hand. Think about why they want to go to graduate school and what sort of area of specialization they might be interested in.  I think it is really important for a prospective graduate student to find out as much as they can about the university (in particular the department) that they are thinking of attending.  It is really important that the student choose a graduate school that is at least capable of meeting her needs.  One of the best ways of finding out this information is by talking with other graduate students in that program. 

Understand the job market20.5% of the philosophy students surveyed offered advice

about this topic.

 You must be aware that job placement is both a lottery and an enterprise that requires careful preparation. Be aware of the lack of job opportunities on graduation and the real possibility that one will not be able to find a job after being awarded a Ph.D.  Develop a knowledge- and skills-base that is as broad as possible, since the availability of employment opportunities (especially in the academy) are uncertain at best. Do everything you can to get off campus: either to advance your academic career (present papers, do research elsewhere, teach at other schools, meet colleagues and publishers elsewhere) or to advance your non-academic career (do internships, explore alternative career options, etc.).  The myth

that all grad students can and will find full-time tenure-track jobs in academia is still alive and well for many, many older faculty who walked right out of grad school to the academic jobs they still have.  It is close to a fair generalization to say that they will not give you good advice about finding such jobs (if they exist any more) or pursuing alternatives (which they take to be an admission of defeat).Seriously consider dropping out after getting an MA and pursue a line of work less fraught with risk (personal, professional and financial).  It is easier to retrain for a future career change at the MA then at the Ph.D. Know the job market for your discipline.  Be prepared for little choice when it comes to location of future job.  Have a healthy careerist attitude from the start (unless you're not planning on getting an academic job). Do this only if you love to do it; you'll be lucky if you can find a job in a place out of the backwaters doing it. 

Understand and get funding11.6% of the philosophy students surveyed offered advice

about this topic. Don't do it without funding. Make sure your department is clear about their commitment to funding you.  Avoid taking out loans, if possible, since the job situation is terrible.  

Select your advisor carefully12.3% of the philosophy students surveyed offered advice

about this topic.

 Having an advisor who both encourages and challenges you is the single most important thing.  Like it or not, that's the person who holds the future of your career in their pen, letters really matter on the market as does having had someone to give you the kind of advice you need to make your work matter in your field and the discipline as a whole.  The advisor you select should be supportive and involved.  If he/she is not, get a new one. Do whatever you can to work with supportive faculty who have some clout in your field.  These two qualities may be difficult to find in a single individual, but both qualities are extremely important both during your studies and when you look for work. Get a personable mentor/dissertation director who has a reputation for moving students through.  Also, find a mentor or advisor you can TRUST and try to work with them from early on.  But don't really hand over or trust them with your scholarly development, make sure YOU are always in charge of those decisions. 

Take time off between undergraduate and PhD studies

6.2% of the philosophy students surveyed offered advice about this topic.

 Take time off between college and graduate school to make sure it is what you want to do.  

Realize that grad school will always be there--do not worry about getting in right after undergrad. 

Sunday, August 13, 2006Engineering, Change and IdentityIn order gain a feel for the philosophical influences acting on the engineering profession I have started receiving daily news alerts from google. These snippets of current affairs can provide interesting insights into the wider issues that underpin the industry and inform philosophical debate.

By way of illustration, take today's batch of news items. Two stories rise to the attention of the philosophical enquirer - The first from the UK, by Douglas Friedl in "Scotland on Sunday" and the second from the USA, by Jim Mackinnon in "The Beacon Journal".

The scottish news article voiced the views of the local engineering industry, who were lamenting the downgrading of engineering in Scotland and suggested that engineering has lost its visibility despite the fact that it provides a vital foundation for the regional economy. In response to this allegation the article quoted the Scottish Enterprise agency who made the distinction between "advanced" engineering sectors that optimsed cross-cutting opportunities between industries and "traditional" engineering sectors (energy, construction and aerospace) that did not. The Enterprise agency considered that the future favoured these advanced engineering sectors over the traditional ones. It may be surmised therefore that it is not that engineering has lost its visibility or has been downgraded, rather that it is advancing and changing.

This advancement and change was the focus of the second article in The Beacon Journal. The article considered that the globalisation of sience and technology has resulted in an acceleration of; change, the development of new concepts and the application of new approaches. This effect is happening across all industries and disciplines and the article proposed that the only way to keep up with the pace of change was to create new collaborations, partnerships and systems for communication. And perhaps one may sympathise with the Scottish industries who are caught up in this whirlwind of change - for change can be hard to understand and accept and even harder to implement.

When change occurs we often seek to anchor ourselves to the set of core beliefs and values that have defined us and to which we have a desire to remain attached. In terms of the engineering industry it is the concepts, theories, skills and abilities that define what it is to be an engineer. In the new world of "advanced engineering" we must decide which of these are fundamental to enable the concept of "engineering" to live on. I am reminded here of Descartes search for fundamental truths and an insightful volume I more recently encountered, Viktor Frankl's "Man's search for meaning".

Engineering is perhaps having an identity crisis, which in itself is nothing new, but perhaps the crises which it perceives are getting closer to the core of its being. Its problems may be more existential, that is to say relating to its very meaning of existence. To overcome this semi-neurosis (semi- because we cannot say that engineering as a whole suffers from this kind of concern) Viktor Frankl would suggest that engineering must recognise that such problems result from being locked into memories of the past and to move forward engineering must focus on the future. To put it another way; engineering needs to move away from thinking about what it can do for society to thinking about what society expects it to do.

This may involve a philosophical paradigm shift or a retrenchment of established philosophical principles. Either way food for the mind of the philosophical enquirer

posted by Andrew Fox @ 3:31 AM 2 comments

Friday, July 07, 2006

Engineering and DescartesSo how about Rene Descartes? An interesting fellow, 1596-1650 and penned the now famous line “Cogito ergo sum” (for you Latin scholars and much corrupted by my sociological friend – “Have spanner so am engineer”, irreverent but curiously apt). Rene was a man frustrated with the state of things in his profession and dared to think up new ideas as to how his profession could move forward.

In doing so he applied a rigorously logical approach to his endeavours. Essentially he set out to strip bare the theoretical framework of his profession until he could find its fundamental source (or truth). His method involved four steps:

First – never accept anything as true that he did not know to be evidently true, that is to say, avoid precipitancy and prejudiceSecond – divide each of the difficulties that he examined into as many parts as possible in order to best solve itThird – start by thinking about the simplest and easiest part to solve before moving to the more complex objectsFourth – check everything, taking care to have omitted nothing

A blueprint for engineering method? Are Engineers Descartian disciples? Do Engineers pay sufficient homage to Descartes? 

Perhaps the philosophers out there in cyber space can shed more light on the works of Descartes and how they relate to the world of philosophy and of course engineering. Should Descartes be regarded an engineering hero, having contributed deliberately or inadvertently to the development of engineering thought?

Questions, questions!

For those with an interest, Rene Descartes: Discourse on method and the meditations, in the Penguin Classics series is a very good read (only a slim volume, always the best I find).

posted by Andrew Fox @ 1:55 PM 2 comments

Sunday, June 11, 2006More Engineering and TheologyOk no interesting replies to my posting, but I don’t want to give up on this topic just yet.

On another forum, some comments suggested it would not be a good idea prescribing ever more “stuff” for inclusion in engineering curricula. I agree, and worry that this tendency to over prescribe leaves little time for deep learning and results in a spoon-feeding approach; and I ask myself is that good for the profession? 

I have always seen my engineering career as a journey, a never ending path of learning along which I am driven by a love for the subject. As such the few years spent as university have long-since become only a small part of what makes me an engineer.

This may be likened to some form of religious devotion, something spiritual, something beyond the materialist and utilitarian application of scientific principles to problems. Rather it may be characterised by a desire to understand the nature of engineering knowledge and how that knowledge can be used for the benefit of mankind the universe and everything. To some extent, it seems this zeal is missing from new entrants to the engineering profession; it seems the profession may be losing

touch with its soul. 

And what can theology teach us? Well theology is very much about nurturing the soul and it serves as a reminder of what values we should focus on if we are to put the soul back into engineering. I would hazard a guess that a foundation for life-long learning and dedication is more about soul than about science.

To some extent this is exactly the sort of question that needs to be address by a forum exploring the philosophy of engineering and so I appeal to readers to consider this topic; for I wonder – How important is the soul to the profession? If it is, how do we nourish it? And if we do, when do we start?

posted by Andrew Fox @ 1:00 PM 2 comments

Sunday, June 04, 2006Philosophy of Engineering?I see a few blogs on this subject and I wonder - how frequently do engineers ask themselves why do they do what they do?

Like all other professions, the body of knowledge that constitutes the sphere of engineering continues to grow. The education of engineers is thus forced to focus on increasingly specialised areas of knowledge with the threat that the greater meaning of engineering is lost.

At its heart, engineering is about production. Engineers take materials from the world about them and reshape them for the betterment of mankind. This requires a conscious effort and the application of logical thought to satisfy a perceived need.

As a logical process, engineering involves the formulation of concepts, the design of solutions and the creation of physical manifestations of those solutions. It utilises resources that may be inert, semi automated or even living and it is driven by an instinct for survival, a need for protection and desire to develop.

Engineering is not free to be applied at will to any perceived need, but must work within cultural constraints and adhere to the moral and ethical standards of the society in whose service it is employed. Not withstanding such limitations, its proponents do aspire to achieve the both artful and efficient utilisation of resources and the attainment of ultimate truth in the solutions derived from their efforts.

In essence, to grasp the greater meaning of engineering requires the development of philosophical concepts such as a cognitive awareness of life, self, others and the external world. This needs to be blended with a higher understanding of science, the environment and society. And as servants for society engineers, through their education, should acquire knowledge of a sense of duty, sentiment and humility.

Engineering is therefore not just about mathematics, design, experimentation and manufacture; it is about epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. If engineers desire to truly understand themselves, their profession and their role in society, they need to include in their education the study of philosophy and perhaps by that they may enrich even this learned field by developing their own philosophy of engineering.

posted by Andrew Fox @ 2:01 PM 0 comments

Saturday, June 03, 2006Engineering and Theology

So there I was reading an interesting paper titled "Theology and the outcomes-based curriculum: the value of not knowing" in the 2006 spring edition of the "Discourse" journal when I became struck by the familiarity of the narrative.

The question struck me; could it be that there are parallels between the teaching of theology and the teaching of engineering? It seemed that there were.

The paper (by Darlene Bird) outlined how theological education in the UK has been impacted by the modern trend in education to have outcomes that are "useful" for the British economy and that learning for learning's sake was now regarded as "a bit dodgy". The paper sought to counter this view and proposed an argument in support of an education not restricted by such narrow, materialist and utilitarian outcomes. Focussing on the teaching of theology in a higher education setting the author argued that students should be exposed to the uncertainties and unknowns of this world and that the system should provide the necessary space for open enquiry and discovery. Through such exposure students will be free to develop more independently.

I felt somewhat swayed by the idea that engineering education may be set free from the shackles of overly prescribed curricula. 

The argument went on to reflect on how this utilitarian shift has been accompanied by the redefining of knowledge as a commodity which intern has led to the dominance of an "operationalist" ideology in higher education. The jargon associated with this paradigm focuses on skills, competencies and outcomes and seems devoid of the notions of wisdom, reflection and self-awareness. Education was perceived as having more to do with "training" than with "educating" with little room for transformativity; a process whereby not just the student is changed but the acquired knowledge is transformed in the mind of the student.

This point again struck a chord with me as I remembered the discussions I have had with others on an Engineering and Philosophy E-Forum relating to the importance of truth, honesty, knowledge and wisdom in the engineering profession.

It seems that the theological fraternity has been resisting this trend, which the paper described as reductionist and impoverished and favouring product over process. Education, it was argued, should be transformative, have a profound impact on a person's life, inducing changes in perspectives and attitudes and foster a lifelong quest for wisdom, respect for one's own integrity and that of others, self-examination in terms of the beliefs and values adopted for one's own life and the challenging of prejudices.

Weighty stuff I thought, but not so different from discussions on the E-Forum relating to engineering ethics, sustainability and the duty engineers have to society

The paper concluded by suggesting that a higher education should challenge beliefs and expose prejudices, it should open up the space for students to ask questions - questions that have no answer - and it should provide the opportunity for students to reflect on how they would respond to not having an answer, to not knowing - or acknowledging that they do not know - which is the beginning of wisdom. True knowledge, the author wrote, does not lie in the recitation of facts or in the acquisition of skills: true knowledge has to do with understanding - and facing up to - our human condition. 

I felt convinced, challenged and enthused - what direction should the engineering profession be driving towards? A skills base or a knowledge base? Surely one cannot exist without the other? Should the education system focus on knowledge and employers provide the skills training? Some philosophical and some practical questions - perfect Philosophy of Engineering material.

posted by Andrew Fox @ 4:22 AM 3 comments

Philosophy of Education 

 

    I believe that education is an individual, unique experience for every student who enters a classroom. In order for children to benefit from what schools offer, I think that teachers must fully understand the importance of their job. First, I believe that teachers must consider teaching to be a lifestyle, not a mere forty-hour-a-week job, because a teacher's goals for his/her students encompass much more than relaying out-of-context facts to passive students. As professionals entrusted with the education of young minds, teachers must facilitate learning and growth academically, personally, and ethically. By providing a quality education to each individual in one's classroom, a teacher equips children with the tools necessary for success in life.     In order to accomplish these lofty goals, I think it is important first to establish a mutually respectful, honest rapport with students — a relationship in which communication is of the highest priority. Through this relationship, a fair, democratic environment based on trust and caring can be established in the classroom, making it possible to interact confidently and safely in an academic setting. Once this foundation is established, the educator has already accomplished a major goal: the ethical characteristics of equality; open, honest communication; and trust have been emphasized and put into practice without having to preach to students. Demonstrating these ethically correct behaviors in the classroom and expecting students to model them prepares them for adult interaction and survival in the future.     Academic learning must begin with motivation and inspiration. Students deserve an educator's passion for both the subject at hand and learning as a whole. Teaching and learning become a simultaneous journey for both the teacher and students when students' energy is aroused by a teacher's genuine intensity for learning, because everyone is ready and willing to participate in active learning. To achieve active learning, a teacher must demonstrate enthusiasm and express confidence in the students' abilities to learn and be successful. Employing constructivist methods of teaching in one's classroom forces students to take an active role in their education by making choices and assuming responsibility for intelligent inquiry and discovery. For instance, discussions, projects, and experiments ensure

student achievement and allow students and the teacher to discover individual student's preferences and strengths. This approach facilitates differentiated activities for each student's distinctive ambitions, making the subject more relevant to every student's life.      Personal growth is accomplished when a teacher adopts a mentoring role. Displaying warmth and compassion shows students that teachers love them and are empathic, feeling human beings. One-on-one mentoring involves personal conversations about goals, and taking time to share ideas and experiences. To be a mentor to every student, a teacher must project positivity, exhibit flexibility and confidence, set high expectations for oneself, and demonstrate fairness and consistency. In doing so, students can see appropriate adult behaviors first-hand and begin to emulate them as they mature.     I believe that all children have the ability to learn and the right to a quality education. All youths, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and capabilities should have the opportunity to learn from professional, well-informed teachers who are sophisticated and knowledgeable, both in their area of expertise and life. Certainly, every child has different learning styles and aptitudes; however, by having a personal relationship with every student, a teacher can give each an equal chance of success. By recognizing every student's potential and having separate, individual goals for each, a teacher can accommodate personal needs and abilities and encourage the pursuit of academic aspirations.     I think that teaching and learning are a reciprocal processes. When teachers nurture individual talents in each child, educators can build self-esteem and may encourage a lifelong skill. By supporting these special abilities, teachers can, for example, guide students' research, and students can, in turn, enlighten teachers about subjects in which they may not be as knowledgebale. This mutual respect for individual skills cultivates a professional academic relationship, leading to a give-and-take educational alliance. This liaison allows students to feel that they are on equal intellectual ground with their teachers, thus creating a strong academic atmosphere.     In addition to having a reciprocal relationship with one's students, it is vitally important for teachers to form partnerships with fellow educators. Solid communication among teachers will promote the sharing of ideas and methods and provide a network of support. By working as an educational team, teachers will continue to develop their craft and give the best education possible to their students.

     In choosing to become a teacher, I have made the commitment to myself and my future students to be the best academic, personal, and ethical role model I can be. It is my goal to have a mutually enriching teaching career by keeping an open mind and continually communicating with my peers and students. I am prepared to rise to the challenges of teaching in the 21st century, and I promise to try to provide an honest, well-rounded education to every student I encounter.

My Educational Philosophy

The American public has entrusted the education and development of its children to teachers,

and I take this trust seriously. Regardless of cultural or ethnic background or economic status, the

American people want the schools to teach academic content. Everyone has the right to an excellent

education, and as an educator, I will help students attain that education. The role of a teacher in

students' lives is a significant one, and my beliefs are fundamental in creating my educational

philosophy. Great teachers are the cornerstone of an excellent education, and I have great respect

for every individual I teach.

My educational philosophy is composed of six fundamental components. First, my

educational philosophy is based upon the concept that we as educators, regardless of subject

specialization, are teachers of life. Life is full of challenges, and we should learn from those

challenges. Learning is a life-long process. Our most important duty is to prepare our students to

develop the necessary skills that will lead them to a productive and successful adulthood. I constantly

challenge my students to reach new heights and to continually challenge themselves.

Second, my view of knowledge directly impacts my method of teaching. I view knowledge as

problem-solving skills so students will be empowered to understand conceptually and to influence

their environment. I challenge students to develop their intelligence and talents as fully as possible. I

teach them to recognize their individual learning styles, to take responsibility for their own education,

and to teach themselves and others. Because I feel so deeply in acquiring knowledge, I believe that it

is important to share my enthusiasm for learning with my students. Hopefully, in return they will

begin to value learning and realize that learning continues outside the classroom and for life.

Learning is the basis for personal growth, and teaching is one opportunity to learn from

others. Students possess the desire to learn and share. They each have a unique view of the world to

offer. I encourage an exchange of ideas between myself and my students. I always consider myself to

be a student while I am teaching, so I am the best student in the room. Students have a wealth of

experiences to share, and I want my students to know that I am eager to learn from them also. I

believe that the biggest injustice that an educator can commit is to be complacent. Every experience

has something to offer us, and if we continually strive to better ourselves as a result of that

experience then we are truly educators. "The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know."

- Socrates

As students accept a greater amount of responsibility and become more active in their own

education, they will ultimately learn more. My emphasis on "learning to learn" and student

ownership of learning are related to my belief that students and teachers should learn together. I try

to help students make an academic and social connection to their university by using learning

communities with an integrated curriculum. I want to create a synergy between the learning

communities. Each student is blessed with individual gifts and talents; a school that engages students

in their abilities in and out of the classroom provides the optimal educational environment to be

challenged and to develop. I believe that the very best teaching practices include teaching with the

students� interests in mind, setting high expectations, and balancing instructional methods. If these

practices are executed properly, one outcome would be that students find learning interesting and

challenging. I think when students work together as a team they are learning academically and

socially, and they are exposed to the diversity of fellow students. I believe teachers can address

student�s differences by teaching that uniqueness is a good thing and not everyone is the same. I

try to integrate thinking, feeling and hands on work into lessons. I believe that students should be

active and learn to solve problems by reflecting on their life experiences.

My third educational philosophy component is based upon a belief in fairness. I believe every

student should be treated fairly. Every student should receive what they need to gain an education.

They will receive an even amount of time, energy, and effort from me both in and out of the

classroom. I give every student an equally proficient education, and in doing this, sometimes I have to

treat students differently. Some students� need more from me than others do, so sometimes fair

means I extend myself further to those students who need me more. I am there for all of my students

and their individual needs. All students should be treated fairly and should have the same access to

an education. I want all students to know that knowledge is power, and that they are responsible for

their own education.

My fourth component centers on my students and creating an appropriate learning

environment in and out of the classroom. It is my job as an educator to create a safe and positive

learning environment and to facilitate students taking responsibility for their own education. I strive

to create a place where my students know I sincerely care about them. I want them to benefit from

my experience, knowledge, and interests, but, even more, I want to teach them to find and satisfy

their own passions. I encourage students to search for their passions, and I will help guide them on

their search to success and happiness. My door is always open to my students. I do not want to be

strictly an authority figure. I am there for advising and mentoring; for listening to their needs and

problems; and for an adult�s point of view. As a mentor, I will display strong values and maintain

high expectations in order to have a strong impact on my students. I want to be a guide on their

journey to adulthood and to inspire and support their dreams while fostering a sense of belonging. I

must exemplify professionalism, charity, and civility. I want to foster mutual respect between my

students and me.

My beliefs about students greatly influence how I teach. Every teacher has unique

experiences, attitudes about teaching methods, and views on how to teach. I believe that all students

are capable of learning. My philosophy encompasses a variety of aspects, that combined, will create a

positive, student-centered atmosphere in and out of my classroom. I want each student to notice my

enthusiasm for teaching and learning when they are a part of my class. I work to make my classroom

environment open, friendly, fun, challenging and inspiring. I try to cultivate an innate curiosity and

love of learning in my students. I want them to discover a passion for learning. By creating an

encouraging, orderly classroom environment, involving discussions and group work, I will encourage

students to become successful learners and problem solvers. I teach with students� goals and

interests as part of the curriculum. I have very positive attitudes and views, and I love working with

students.

My core educational goals extend beyond the academic curriculum into individual character

and personality, including social, emotional and intellectual components of my students. I believe

that human beings are social animals and have a unique biological affinity for learning, enculturation,

communication, and knowing the difference between right and wrong. I provide a safe place for

students while they are away from their home. I want my students to feel free to talk to me about

anything. If I am not equipped to give my students the appropriate advice or support they need, I will

encourage them to talk with counselors and social workers about their problems. I hope to give them

a feeling of security by being available to my students. I believe teachers can best help students learn

by paying attention to them and truly caring about them. I go the extra steps to let my students know

that I care. I base teacher-student relationships on trust and helpfulness. It is important that teachers

convey positive attitudes toward their students and believe that they can learn and develop a

friendship, yet still maintain respect for one another.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to be respected, develop their unique strengths, recognize

and modify weaknesses, and become a lifelong contributing and active citizen. Students and

educators should be responsible citizens, appreciate our wide diversity, and value individual

differences. We should embrace diversity and form partnerships in and out of the classroom.

Teachers have a role as a bridge to the community and to be active in their own community. Teachers

are a very big part of the student�s lives because they are the ones who are not only teaching, but

also demonstrating how to become a good citizen. We are all teachers and learners everyday of our

lives.

I hope to create an emotional experience within my students whereby they develop

knowledge, have a positive self esteem and internal motivation. The knowledge they acquire will be

goal oriented and curriculum driven. The way I accomplish this will vary depending on the uniqueness

of each class and the individuals in the class.

Finally, professional development is required for any teacher who seeks continuous self-

improvement. I am facilitator in the learning process and serve as a role model. I have an ongoing

responsibility to increase my knowledge of both content and pedagogy, and to continually reassess

my actions and programs in response to a constantly changing environment.

As an educator I need to be keenly aware of the role I play in a student's life. Life offers an

infinite realm of learning opportunities, each catalyzing personal growth and expanded knowledge.

As an educational facilitator, I need to be a flexible role model who demonstrates an unconditional,

consistent acceptance of all my students and continuously seeks to facilitate an education that

matches each individual. In my classroom, I will provide a safe, student-centered environment which

fosters a respect of individual self-concept and learning style. Everyone has a significant contribution

to offer to this world. Wherever I can, I will assist students in their pursuit of their identity adjacent to

the broad goals of education.

My educational philosophy has been shaped by many things. I rely on my philosophic

foundation to help me build both content and pedagogy. It is important to have strong beliefs,

grounded in sound theory to guide our teaching. It is equally important to remain open minded to

new trends and techniques that may benefit our students. An educational philosophy is not static; it

changes with time and experience, and I will continually reflect, examine, and refine what I believe

and why I believe it. I believe that my philosophy and the way that I understand things will change

with the knowledge that I gain. With this change I am open to anything and my views will be flexible

and as open to opinions as I can be. I know that if my students believe that they can do anything and

dream, they can conquer a new goal everyday, then I will have succeeded as a teacher in my

classroom. In conclusion I believe that every person can walk through the door eager to learn and

walk out ready to teach others with new, bright, and broad horizons. A profession which impacts the

lives of so many people demands nothing less than my best efforts.