Help inform our next campaign

MatthewG: 
 

I am feeling marginalised and that my views don't matter. 

This thread is about members being asked to express their views. Hopefully you've volunteered to be one of those interviewed as part of this piece of work? (See Natalie's post above.)

Thanks,

Andy

At school in the 60s I was with a variety of students from around the world - all male. The sixth form however was shared with an all girls school.

At university, studying Electronics & Electrical Engineering, again there was a variety of students from around the world - all male. However, when doing my PhD there was a very interesting Cantonese lady from Malaysia with us - we eventually got married and are still together. I attracted her interest initially because I knew where Malaysia is.

At work I had some interesting experiences that made me realise that we need a range of people to enhance our engineering capability.

In the earl 80s, we recruited someone who just sat in the corner of the room and said nothing. One person found out how to communicate with him and together they formed a successful small team designing cyber secure power supplies for all of the companies products.

Over time I met and worked with blind people, deaf people, transgender people and people in wheelchairs - all engineers who contributed a lot to the business. Actually when I worked with these people I didn't notice their differences.

During the six years before my retirement, our Chief Engineer was a woman and my manager was a woman.

These are just examples - my work environment was diverse but could be more so.

I think that the IET should be encouraging people from diverse backgrounds that engineering can be very interesting and rewarding while at the same time encouraging companies to recruit a diverse group of people by illustrating the benefits with evidence.

My concern is that we need to include those people who think differently to us. If we can find out how to communicate with them then maybe they have plenty to give to engineering. At the moment we seem to try to control them by giving them medicine.

We also need to give engineers a role in society. Most people have no idea what an engineer is, so it is a closed group. Government could benefit enormously from more engineers being involved. For example, I insist on being called Dr or Peter - I don't like being called Mr but  a lot of people don't know that engineers can be doctors (not medical doctors, i.e. medics). Even worse, nurses with PhDs are still nurse.

I quite agree with you Matthew, the IET is more like a student union these days with their relentless ‘Woke' nonsense, I am seriously thinking of not renewing my membership and leaving after 30 years, I don't recognise it anymore as an engineering institution.

Speaking as a Christian, I don't like the IET's lurch into political correctness. I am feeling marginalised and that my views don't matter. PS Religion or Belief is also one of the protected characteristics.

I work in the health and social care sector, so may have a slightly different perspective. 

I am not sure I fully understand the request. Whether it is asking about equality, diversity and inclusion; or also extends to the wider problem of recognition of engineers in society.

If we are talking about recognition compare the number of times that the British Medical Association (BMA) is mentioned in the media compared with the IET. Both have similar levels of membership, however, the latter hardly ever gets mentioned. You can also look at the section on the BBC website titled Science & Nature and count how many engineering articles are posted - plenty on nature, climate change not so much on how technology and engineering can address the problems. In fact technology and engineering is more likely to be positioned as the polluter and causes of climate change rather than potential solutions.

Climate change cannot be addressed by behavior change alone, and we need engineering solutions that protect the planet. Engineering solutions require engineers. The best engineers to address tomorrows problems will come from those entering the jobs market today.

Health and social care is in crisis. The NHS has done a good job of keeping people alive, however, this has increased the number of people living with multiple long term conditions. Whilst advances in medicines have some impact, there is an increased need for medical devices and assistive technologies…all of which require engineering, and engineers.

There is a fantastic story to tell, across a wide range of problems facing society, which can be addressed with engineering solutions. Government and the media need to raise the profile of these opportunities and break down the barriers which stop companies developing solutions in this country rather than others. If we had the medical devices and assistive technologies we would not need to increase National Insurance tax.

Equality, diversity and inclusion is a problem of organisational culture not the individual. In terms of attracting employees (either to the career or an individual organisation) it is the perception of the culture that either attracts or repels individuals. It is the organisation that needs to be, and be seen to be, in the forefront of addressing these issues. They need to publish clear organisational policies setting out how they will improve standards and senior managers need to stand behind and implement them rather than pay lip service. The IET can help by setting out what good policy looks like and how it can be sensitively implemented, particularly given some long held and entrenched views. The IET can also award recognition to organisations employing best practice to help with recruitment. Engineering has its own culture, it needs an organisation that understands that culture to lead in the development of appropriate policies that will work.

Apologies for the rant, it sometimes helps to write these things down.

The Royal Academy of Engineering review on the STEM education landscape - 

https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/uk-stem-education-landscape

which provided an update to the original review by Sir Gareth Roberts concluded  that there are many factors including structural barriers that prevent young people from engaging in STEM careers. 
From my own experiences, as a female engineer and as someone who has been promoting engineering consistently throughout my career, I can see that there is still much to do. 
Whether people like to admit it or not, there are still huge barriers. I now look after numerous engineering apprentices at L3 and L4 in FE. I am working with local employers and the community to grow the number of apprentices from significantly under represented groups primarily to eradicate the academic snobbery that permeates the education system (and sorry to be blunt, but the Institutions themselves fall into that bracket too). I  had an apprentice, who through no fault of his own, lost his apprenticeship (COVID related and downturn in business), he wanted to continue with his L3 engineering qualification but fell outside all the free funding criteria mostly because of his age and the fact that he already had A Levels (not in STEM subjects). I tried ALL my networks to try and secure funding for him, but to no avail. I ask why???? As an Institution we have a number of incentives to support undergraduates and graduates but little if anything to support those who choose an alternative route? Why?
We have to ensure that we are accessible to ALL, no matter their route into or through engineering.

Fantastic idea - “Campaign to challenge outdated stereotypes”.  My assertion would be that, as a Chartered Engineer (of a certain age), I now spend time in schools trying to inspire the future generation of scientists and engineers.  The primary, in my opinion, stereotype that needs resolution is the term “engineer”.  Pretty much everyone - who hasn't worked in “STEM” (ie many teachers, parents and children) - have a very blinkered view on “engineering”.  This is often reinforced by those “in the industry” who continue to “badge engineering” as hard hats, overalls - or “the bloke who comes to fix the dishwasher (notice how I included another stereotype).  ”Engineering" can absolutely involve people in hard hats etc but it can also NOT involve people in hard hats.  We need to turn this around, describe better what “engineering” can be and get “engineering” to be a revered profession (that ALL understand) such as a doctor or lawyer.  Work to do!

Thank you to everyone for your contributions so far. To reiterate - it really is important to us to get as broad a set of viewpoints as possible, and we do value the diversity of thought and experience shared so far.

Please do continue to share your perspectives on this thread, and share with your colleagues and friends within the industry. The more input we can get, the more we can understand the landscape in order to develop campaigns which are representative of the UK and the wider world, and also which are truly inclusive and able to drive meaningful conversations and change as required.

If you have a thought you'd rather submit to us anonymously, you can do so using this form.

And if you're free over the next week and would be willing to participate in a more detailed interview, please enter your details for consideration via this form.

Many thanks!

James Smith: 
 

I can only guess that those who fight against it may be fearful that their own careers and achievements were not won fairly.  Although this might be true to a certain extent, there is more than enough space for anyone within engineering given the historical, current and projected future shortages.

Hi James,

I suspect the issue is often rather more complicated to address than this. All of us have a particular world view, for all sorts of reasons, and any threat to that results in huge cognitive dissonance. The human brain has a huge capacity to invent reasons to justify its world view in the face of all the evidence - when you've spent years accepting a particular position our subconscious will do its utmost to defend the patterns it's set up. There's a Nobel peace prize waiting for anyone who can find the solution to that one! Given that it relates to many issues far more existentially important than this one.

(Taking a far more trivial example: I hereby humbly apologise to all those who I bored rigid in pubs in the 80s and 90s with my rants about why analogue audio was better (and always would be) than digital. Which of course was because a: I was an analogue audio designer and b: all my close colleagues were analogue audio designers. So part defensive, and part groupthink, but all subconscious. P.S. Neither are better, they're just different. And from my later career, I hereby accept that axle counters are at least as valid a mechanism for train detection as track circuits - even if I do have to grit my teeth while writing that! ? P.S. Neither are better, they're just different!)

As is well known, the best solution we do know of is for individuals to get themselves out of the echo chamber. Which neatly brings us back to the point - the greater the diversity of views, attitudes and approaches in, say, the world of engineering, the greater the range of views, attitudes and approaches that are acceptable. It's a snowball effect. And of course it works the other way - most of us will have come across companies where everyone thinks the same way as the CEO, anyone who doesn't is either not recruited in first place or doesn't stay long (through their choice or the company's). If you do think the same way as the CEO then everything's fine and it's everyone else that's wrong. And when the company goes bust it's the rest of the world that's at fault for not appreciating how wonderful the company was (the first company I ever worked for was a superb example of this).

Then once out of the echo chamber a healthy evidence based debate can start…and I'm sure our approaches to and opinions on this issue will change as new evidence comes to light. Which again, takes us back to the original question.

I do often feel in situations like this that there are two engineering professions operating in parallel universes (and I've switched between both through some portal during my career): the one based around innovation, creativity and constant progression, including an awareness that the underlying science itself is constantly developing, and the one based around the principle “I was told this as a student / apprentice so that will be true until the end of time”.  Which is comforting to the individual, but not terribly helpful to anyone else. Oh dear, I've gone grumpy old engineer again…

“How many psychotherapists does it take to change a light bulb?” “Just one but the light bulb really has to want to change!” Ahhh…it's good to have an excuse to get that one out again ?

Cheers,

Andy

Really, the IET is becoming so much like a student union, maybe we should rename it the Nelson Mandela Institution in recognition of all the sterling work done by student unions up and down the country towards social justice over the decades.