Issues Driving Reform Of Faculty Reward Systems To Advance Professional Graduate Engineering Education:Differentiating Characteristics Between Scientific Research And Engiineering

This is the second paper in the special panel session focusing on issues driving reform of faculty reward systems to advance professional graduate engineering education for creative engineering practice and to stimulate leadership of technology innovation to enhance U.S. competitiveness. This paper addresses the characteristics that differentiate the pursuits of basic academic scientific research and of professional engineering practice for the systematic creation, development, and leadership of new and improved technology for purposeful innovation in industry and government service. 1. Background and History Whereas in the last half of the last century, faculty reward systems that assessed productive faculty scholarship at the nation’s schools of engineering and technology have been based largely on the linear research-driven model of engineering innovation (originating in 1945 U.S. science policy) 1 , a new model for needs-driven, systematic engineering innovation has emerged in the 21 st century. Scientific research and professional engineering practice are no longer viewed as linear, sequential activities. Today, creative professional engineering practice and directed scientific research are viewed as concurrent activities with unique missions and functions. 1.1 Status of U.S. Engineering Graduate Education Although the U.S. system of engineering graduate education has served our nation well for the further graduate education of academic scientific researchers at the nation’s schools of engineering (and must continue to do so), the professional complement of engineering education must be reinforced substantially to meet new challenges of the 21 st century relevant to the practice of engineering itself for the leadership of creative technology development and innovation in industry and government service. Since the end of World War II, the United States has invested heavily in fostering research-driven graduate education for the further development of the U.S. scientific workforce who perform research at the universities. In hindsight, however, it is now apparent that a balanced investment has not been made in fostering a complementary path of professional graduate education for the further graduate development of the nation’s engineers during this same time period contributing to a long-term underdevelopment of the U.S. engineering workforce and subsequently reflected in the loss of U.S. competitiveness for technology innovation. P ge 926.1 “Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education” 1.2 Engineering Graduate Education, Creative Professional Practice, and Research As the nation competes in the 21 st century, we can no longer afford to consider engineering graduate education and research as one word. However, because of 1945 science policy (Vannevar Bush ReportScience: The Endless Frontier) and an avalanche of federal funding (holding the central theme that basic scientific research performed at the universities is the primary source of U.S. technology innovation for economic prosperity and for national defense), 2 U.S. engineering graduate education grew in the 1960’s – 1990’s largely as a by-product of academic research. 3 With the Bush report, a covenant was established between federal government and the nation’s research universities. Increased emphasis was placed on basic research for the advancement of science and on the simultaneous graduate education of academic researchers at the universities because they were perceived as the primary generators of U.S. technology. By this scheme, academic scientific researchers would be trained at the nation’s universities and university research findings would be transferred as the principal “wellspring” for engineering development in industry as a secondary, follow-on activity for conversion of new scientific knowledge into new products, processes, systems, and operations. This scheme became known as the linear research model for technology innovation. 1.3 Long-Term Decline of US Innovative Capacity for Technology Competitiveness Today, research has become the foundation for engineering graduate education at most schools of engineering across the nation. By every measure, America’s investment in its 1945 science policy as the blueprint for strengthening our scientific enterprise through graduate education and research is paying valuable dividends for the advancement of science. But that does not mean that the system of U.S. engineering graduate education cannot be improved for the advancement of technology. While the nation has gained preeminence in academic scientific research and research-oriented graduate education, it has lost ground in technology and professional engineering education. There has been a long-term decline of U.S. technology competitiveness and loss of America’s innovative capacity for creative technology development in industry. Several factor have contributed to the loss of America’s technology competitiveness, but if engineering graduate education has anything at all to do with the development of our creative intellectual capital, responsible for the engineering advancements of new technological developments and innovations, then the present health of U.S. engineering graduate education itself must be included as a major contributing factor in the loss of US competitiveness. 1.4 Technology Matters The Changing Practice of Engineering for Systematic Technology Innovation The assumption that federally funded basic scientific research (performed at the nation’s research universities) is the principal generator of US technology for economic growth and national security has been fundamental to U.S. science policy since the end of World War II. But after three decades of federal funding and academic emphasis on singular use of the linear research model (as the sole source of US technology innovation and principal driver of engineering development in industry), there is a heightened sense of national urgency that the 1945 linear research-driven model of technology innovation is outmoded and only partially true. 4,5,6,7 This finding does not mean that the pursuit of basic academic scientific research and the education of future academic researchers are not important. Both are vitally important to the nation’s welfare. But so are the pursuit of creative engineering practice in industry and government service and the education of the nation’s creative engineering talent for leadership of technology development vitally important to the nation’s welfare. P ge 926.2 “Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2004, American Society for Engineering Education” The finding that the linear research-driven model of engineering innovation is outmoded does mean, however, that the creative intellectual capital for future U.S. technological advancements resides primarily within the U.S. engineering workforce in industry and government service; and that new, improved, and breakthrough technological advancements result primarily from a different method than that portrayed by 1945 science policy. The U.S. Department of Defense recognized this finding as early as 1967 and subsequently based its preeminence for military advanced technology developments on a different model of technology innovation because it was too important to place the nation’s defense on the linear model of 1945. The national implications of this finding and the necessary actions required in reshaping the future direction of professional engineering graduate education to enhance the vitality of the US engineering workforce for competitiveness in industry are profound. As Jewkes (emeritus professor at Oxford) pointed out: “The theory that technical innovation arises directly out of, and only out of, advance in pure science does not provide a full and faithful story of modern invention.” 8 Although basic academic scientific research performed at the universities continues to be the backbone for sustaining the nation’s future advancement of scientific progress, it is now understood that sole use of the linear research model for technology innovation is no longer reliable in sustaining the nation’s systematic engineering advancements for technological progress in industry for our economic growth or for our national security. As the 1988 Council on Competitiveness Report pointed out: the belief that technology innovation progresses primarily in a step-wise fashion and as a linear-sequential process from basic research to development is largely myth and does not represent reality. 9 Both science and engineering are important in the modern process of technological innovation. But the activities of basic scientific research and creative engineering practice are no longer perceived as stepwise, linear, and sequential functions. Instead these activities are now viewed as interwoven and concurrent: each with a separate function and purpose. As the nation competes in the innovation-driven economy, the model of engineering innovation and the practice of engineering for creating, innovating, and leading the development of new useful technology have changed substantially from that portrayed by the simplistic model of 1945 science policy and reliance on a linear basic research-driven model of technological innovation. Technology development is viewed today as a deliberate creative process of engineering that is driven by real-world needs which is supported by directed (applied) scientific research. The conventional model, portraying that the majority of technological developments arise from [Basic Research] → [Engineering] → [Technology] as a linear sequential process (resulting in new and improved products, processes, systems, and operations) is outmoded and is no longer effective for ensuring U.S. innovative competitiveness for