We had a variety of discussions this past Tuesday, but the one I found the most interesting was around the perceived difference in how scientists and engineers determine peers' reputations.
The original point was that it seems like when scientists are introduced (like at a colloquium), there's a certain emphasis placed on the degrees they've earned and the academic institutions where they completed these degrees. On the other hand, when engineers are introduced, the emphasis is all on their experience and which missions or projects they've worked on during their professional careers. I think this difference is intriguing - why exactly do the two different cultures emphasize different types of experience?
We went on to talk about the engineering world, where this perspective permeates reviews. In other words, it seems that anytime a question comes up from someone outside the project being reviewed, it must be preceded by "back on mission ___..." It seems that other opinions aren't really valued, and we get stuck in the trap of "well, if it hasn't been done before (i.e. 'heritage'), then it can't be done on this project."
Seems like a really interesting engineering cultural phenomenon to me! Do you see this happening? Do similar things happen in other fields?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think the emphasis on experience is grater at Goddard than at other institutions. When I was at Glenn Research Center, experience was not as highly touted as the number and quality of papers written. If you had a number of published journal articles, then you were perceived as an expert. This makes sense since the focus of Glenn was research. In addition, the majority of employees at Glenn held advanced degrees (majority with PhD) from reputable institutions. Thus your reputation was based on a combination of your experience and your published works.
When I cam to GSFC from GRC, I wanted to learn from what people had done in the past, but also wanted to distinguish myself by pursuing an advanced degree and publishing papers. Coming from Glenn I thought this was important. As I'm finding out now after working here for 3 years and on LRO for 2, that no one cares what degrees you hold or how many papers you write, as long as you get the work done. As much as I find this disturbing, I understand that "the project" wants you to get the project work done within budget. Thus individuals may not care to develop themselves and their skills, especially since funding for graduate school is drying up.
This leads me to a deeper question, which is: Why is engineering at Goddard slave to the projects? Shouldn't we divert resources to develop new technologies? Shouldn't we divert resources to increase the knowledge base of our employees? Shouldn't we reward those for thinking outside the box?
I propose:
1) Don't refer to other missions when making technical arguments; just make your technical argument.
2) Take time to educate yourself about the current state of the art (at Goddard and elsewhere)
3) Pursue an advanced degree
4) Learn from what people have done in the past, but try to improve it.
If everyone at Goddard does this, we will change what an engineer's reputation is based on.
Post a Comment