This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Where is the IET going?

The IET on Twitter is mostly about women in engineering and it appears we also have or have had an Executive member who represents the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers (AFBE-UK). Since when did we get away and direct our selves at subsections of the organization? There is no minorities that I am aware of in the IET at least not because of bias in any way shape of form. The same goes for women in engineering, no one is biased against them. Low numbers are because they dont want to be in engineering..

Where is the IET heading? It does not seem to be going in a place most of the member wold probably want or is it?

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

David, I’m pleased that you have highlighted this important Social Science based study of cultures in Engineering.

I picked on this element

“Age makes more of a difference. Feelings of inclusion decrease with age, so that engineers in the older age cohort feel less included than younger engineers.” and “It must not be overlooked that one in five white and male engineers do not feel fully included in the profession”. I would hypothesise that these feelings might correlate with social class and university attendance. In the older age groups a far higher proportion of UK Engineers developed their careers via apprenticeships and although a minority have found pathways through to the “commanding heights” of the profession, many will have experienced negative prejudice and exclusion from Chartered Engineer recognition for example, on academic rather than performance grounds. The long running IEng “problem” which has occupied many hundreds of posts in these forums is an ample illustration. Perhaps this research has attracted people with similar experience of some gender and ethnic diversity (the focus of the study), rather than people with diverse experience? I note that 1% of the respondents were apprentices, 83% of respondents were office based and that only one of the photographs chosen clearly represents engineering (page 23 Clare).

Having focussed on “feelings” let’s focus back on performance, because we are charged with discriminating on the basis of performance for professional registration. Many amongst us, reasonably argue that any other basis in inappropriate, there are for example people who feel that they were outcompeted in a situation, because “positive discrimination” or “tokenism” had an influence.

In an earlier post, I gave some examples of “level 7” Apprenticeships which are designed to align with to align with Chartered Engineer. Below are examples of “Level 3” Apprenticeships designed to align with Engineering Technician. Part of the IET’s role in ensuring professional standards it to evaluate the professional competence of Engineers and Technicians within this range of practice. We hold a license to do this in the public interest and any evidence of discriminatory behaviour by us, could see it withdrawn, seriously undermining our credibility.

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/installation-electrician-maintenance-electrician/

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/engineering-technician/

The levels are a device for comparing academic qualifications based on the amount of study and its academic demands, I won’t debate that here (literally an academic argument), but they provide useful benchmarks.

We choose to value “learnedness” more highly than practical productive contribution, but the needs of the market and actions of employers may allocate value differently , including factors like supply & demand, value added and productivity. Therefore, someone like an Electrician or Plumber may earn more than a Chartered Engineer. Public sector organisations tend to align salary and career structures with qualifications, private ones with productivity and economic value added.

I would see our responsibility as a leader, not only to recognise professional competence for public benefit, but also to ensure that there is fair access to those who wish to develop careers in Engineering and Technology. Therefore, in my example above of an Electrician, very few women seek an Electrician’s apprenticeship. There is no biological reason why they cannot carry out the role successfully and a small number do so, but there is clearly a cultural barrier. In the earlier example of a Chartered Engineer, high level academic performance in mathematics and science subjects by the age of 16 is almost essential to gain access to an accredited degree course. This is far less likely to be achieved by those from less advantaged backgrounds , where there is no tradition of university attendance, the concept of a chartered professional is little understood and likely role models are non-existent. Engineering careers have historically been “engines of social mobility”, but that effect has declined in recent decades. Successive governments have considered this a national priority issue https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fair-access-to-professional-careers-a-progress-report

The IET can just ignore these issues, or exercise moral leadership and try to address them.

The IET has clearly sought to promote gender and racial equality (hence the thread) and sought to become more actively engaged with “Technicians” including Electricians and other roles with skill and responsibility. It has conducted surveys and publicised employers feedback, contributing to government action seeking to revitalise the apprenticeship tradition which served us so well and as a by-product created social mobility. In respect of those at the other end of our span of standards remit, we don’t uniquely control access to Chartered Engineer, but we have been one of the most influential players in this or its earlier equivalents for well over 100 years. I would argue that the IET has widened access and at least maintained if not enhanced standards over recent years. However, there remain some systematic problems inherent in the current model of professional recognition, that The IET has found more difficult to deal with. These are about how we create divisions between us and what the consequences are.

Engineering Council apportions relative status to these divisions, which has created a situation where potentially very significant achievement is widely held to be of “lower” status. Here are two examples of “level 6” Apprenticeships

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/building-services-engineering-site-management-degree/
https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/chartered-surveyor-degree/

I used to manage a mixed (speciality, gender and ethnicity) group of people who were following an earlier version of these two pathways. It seems that perhaps each pathway, is held in very different levels of respect by its professional community. I agree with Clive, that it is competence that matters and would add productivity, but once we conflate competence with status and then apportion lower status to perfectly competent professional practitioners of good conduct, then our credibility is undermined. We deter those practitioners from participation and reinforce the widely held view that PEIs are “elitist gentlemen’s clubs”.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

David, I’m pleased that you have highlighted this important Social Science based study of cultures in Engineering.

I picked on this element

“Age makes more of a difference. Feelings of inclusion decrease with age, so that engineers in the older age cohort feel less included than younger engineers.” and “It must not be overlooked that one in five white and male engineers do not feel fully included in the profession”. I would hypothesise that these feelings might correlate with social class and university attendance. In the older age groups a far higher proportion of UK Engineers developed their careers via apprenticeships and although a minority have found pathways through to the “commanding heights” of the profession, many will have experienced negative prejudice and exclusion from Chartered Engineer recognition for example, on academic rather than performance grounds. The long running IEng “problem” which has occupied many hundreds of posts in these forums is an ample illustration. Perhaps this research has attracted people with similar experience of some gender and ethnic diversity (the focus of the study), rather than people with diverse experience? I note that 1% of the respondents were apprentices, 83% of respondents were office based and that only one of the photographs chosen clearly represents engineering (page 23 Clare).

Having focussed on “feelings” let’s focus back on performance, because we are charged with discriminating on the basis of performance for professional registration. Many amongst us, reasonably argue that any other basis in inappropriate, there are for example people who feel that they were outcompeted in a situation, because “positive discrimination” or “tokenism” had an influence.

In an earlier post, I gave some examples of “level 7” Apprenticeships which are designed to align with to align with Chartered Engineer. Below are examples of “Level 3” Apprenticeships designed to align with Engineering Technician. Part of the IET’s role in ensuring professional standards it to evaluate the professional competence of Engineers and Technicians within this range of practice. We hold a license to do this in the public interest and any evidence of discriminatory behaviour by us, could see it withdrawn, seriously undermining our credibility.

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/installation-electrician-maintenance-electrician/

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/engineering-technician/

The levels are a device for comparing academic qualifications based on the amount of study and its academic demands, I won’t debate that here (literally an academic argument), but they provide useful benchmarks.

We choose to value “learnedness” more highly than practical productive contribution, but the needs of the market and actions of employers may allocate value differently , including factors like supply & demand, value added and productivity. Therefore, someone like an Electrician or Plumber may earn more than a Chartered Engineer. Public sector organisations tend to align salary and career structures with qualifications, private ones with productivity and economic value added.

I would see our responsibility as a leader, not only to recognise professional competence for public benefit, but also to ensure that there is fair access to those who wish to develop careers in Engineering and Technology. Therefore, in my example above of an Electrician, very few women seek an Electrician’s apprenticeship. There is no biological reason why they cannot carry out the role successfully and a small number do so, but there is clearly a cultural barrier. In the earlier example of a Chartered Engineer, high level academic performance in mathematics and science subjects by the age of 16 is almost essential to gain access to an accredited degree course. This is far less likely to be achieved by those from less advantaged backgrounds , where there is no tradition of university attendance, the concept of a chartered professional is little understood and likely role models are non-existent. Engineering careers have historically been “engines of social mobility”, but that effect has declined in recent decades. Successive governments have considered this a national priority issue https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fair-access-to-professional-careers-a-progress-report

The IET can just ignore these issues, or exercise moral leadership and try to address them.

The IET has clearly sought to promote gender and racial equality (hence the thread) and sought to become more actively engaged with “Technicians” including Electricians and other roles with skill and responsibility. It has conducted surveys and publicised employers feedback, contributing to government action seeking to revitalise the apprenticeship tradition which served us so well and as a by-product created social mobility. In respect of those at the other end of our span of standards remit, we don’t uniquely control access to Chartered Engineer, but we have been one of the most influential players in this or its earlier equivalents for well over 100 years. I would argue that the IET has widened access and at least maintained if not enhanced standards over recent years. However, there remain some systematic problems inherent in the current model of professional recognition, that The IET has found more difficult to deal with. These are about how we create divisions between us and what the consequences are.

Engineering Council apportions relative status to these divisions, which has created a situation where potentially very significant achievement is widely held to be of “lower” status. Here are two examples of “level 6” Apprenticeships

https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/building-services-engineering-site-management-degree/
https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/chartered-surveyor-degree/

I used to manage a mixed (speciality, gender and ethnicity) group of people who were following an earlier version of these two pathways. It seems that perhaps each pathway, is held in very different levels of respect by its professional community. I agree with Clive, that it is competence that matters and would add productivity, but once we conflate competence with status and then apportion lower status to perfectly competent professional practitioners of good conduct, then our credibility is undermined. We deter those practitioners from participation and reinforce the widely held view that PEIs are “elitist gentlemen’s clubs”.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Where is the IET going?

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines