“More Than Just Engineers” How Engineers Define And Value Communication Skills On The Job.

While most professional and academic sources have expressed a need for engineers who possess strong communication skills, what these skills are actually defined as on-the-job remains somewhat vague in the literature. In this mixed-method study of practicing engineers from industry and governmental engineering workplaces, we heard and observed some answers to help define what communication skills engineers are actually practicing in their jobs. Through qualitative data collected over the past two years in six workplace case studies (including over 50 hours of observation and more than 50 interviews), interviews of engineers and their managers (N=91), and surveys of engineers and engineering managers (N=162), three main themes emerged to provide insights into what engineers mean when they say they value “effective communication” in other engineers. The first theme was what numerous engineers in our study described as “the big picture,” or the ability to effectively speak, write, and interact with audiences who were outside of their specific discipline, work group, or focus. Our second theme centers on an engineer’s willingness and self-motivation to initiate communication with others and to seek out resource information through informal interactions. Finally, the third theme involves the ability of engineers to listen carefully to others in order to do their best work and achieve results that are valued by their stakeholders (clients, managers, co-workers). Understanding these three themes can inform more authentic and engaging ways of teaching engineering students. Teaching improvements are needed, as one interviewee put it, because “Good engineers typically are more than just engineers....I need someone who I can drop in [who] can communicate effectively today.” Introduction to the Problem “Someone can be technically brilliant, but if that person can’t communicate or work with others, what use is their skill?” As engineering educators, we have all heard this question and posed it frequently to our students as well. However, in this mixed-method study of practicing engineers, we heard it resoundingly echoed back from industry and governmental engineering workplaces. While the answer to the question is obvious, what it means to be an engineer who can “communicate” is not as easy to define. Increasingly in recent decades, the engineering field has recognized its need for engineers who have strong communication skills. In fact, ABET curriculum requirements ensure that institutions teach those skills to their graduates.While several studies of engineering undergraduate curriculum have shown that communication skills are being taught primarily through technical reports and presentations, other studies have indicated that these may not be the most, and certainly not the only, required skills needed in engineering workplaces. For many communication instructors who have little, if any, direct experience with engineering workplaces outside of academia, it can be challenging to know how to tailor courses to develop a more interpersonal communication skill set in students. Indeed, as Trevelyan pointed out in his study P ge 15391.2 of communication practices of engineers in Australia, “assessment of communication in engineering education is misaligned with practice requirements”. To better align educational assessment of communication practices in the first place, educators need to know more about how this skill set is defined and practiced in engineering workplaces. This paper intends to help shed light on that question through reporting on the ways that practicing engineers valued, defined, and practiced “communication skills”. Study Description and Methods This study is part of a larger project sponsored by the National Science Foundation which examines the alignment of engineering practice and engineering preparation, in part, to determine how wellor underprepared engineering graduates are to succeed in the profession. This three-year study’s final aim is to suggest ways that engineering educators might better design curriculum and pathways to engage, retain, and eventually produce successful engineers. The survey questions and interview protocols used in our study were crafted based on competencies identified in the National Academies reports The Engineer of 2020 and Rising Above the Gathering Storm . The American Society of Civil Engineers’ Body of Knowledge was also consulted. Hatfield and Shaffer’s work on epistemology assisted in developing the survey and interview questions as well since part of our aim was to identify the ways that practicing engineers developed their epistemic frame. The first of three methods used to collect our qualitative data involved interviews and observations with practicing engineers within six different organizations across a spectrum of engineering employers. Specifically, we aimed to work with employers from government and industry, from small to large-multinational conglomerates in size, and across a broad range of work sectors. For more information about the six organizations we worked with during our study, see Table 1.