Why I Needed to Write "An Applied Guide To Process and Plant Design" #5

I encountered strong resistance to the professional design philosophy from academic colleagues, the overwhelming majority of whom were scientists by training, and who naturally placed huge emphasis on ‘scientific’ research-led approaches.

As Goldberg & Somerville (2014) imply, the emphasis on research, and glorification of scientific research methodology has led to a certain scientism amongst the staff in ‘Engineering Departments’. They look for scientific rigor both in the subjects they teach, and in the evaluation of any new ideas which they might be invited to introduce into their teaching. They look to senior figures in the research community, rather than the profession, to provide leadership; and they require suggestions for change to meet standards for scientific evidence.

This, taken with the near-universal lack of experience of engineering practice amongst academic staff (Excell, 2014), and their lack of knowledge of the social science research studying engineering practice seems to have immunized them against learning what professional engineers do. They strongly prefer to believe that engineering practice is closely related to the subjects they research and teach. This is in my view an example of the logical fallacy philosophers call ‘motivated reasoning’ – “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives” (Westen et al, 2006). More straightforwardly, they believe what it suits them to believe.

There are a number of problems with this. Firstly, the most commonly used hierarchies of evidence strength (which originate in medicine (Burns et al, 2011)) place reviews of the literature by academics at the top of the pyramid, peer reviewed research papers in the middle, and expert opinion at the bottom. This hierarchy may be valid in medicine, but it immunizes researchers against learning anything from professional engineers, because professional engineers do not write research papers.

The quality of research in education is sometimes very poor. The most systematic review of such research is likely to conclude that it is of the lowest possible category of evidence: “not even wrong”, as Pauli would have it (Peierls, 1960). Gorard has written extensively on this problem of ‘pseudo research’ (Gorard 2015a, 2015b; Gorard & Cook, 2007; Gorard & Smith, 2006).

Thus, the na?ve scientific researcher who approaches papers on engineering education as if they were scientific literature is likely to be misled, whereas the opinion of professional engineers on what professional engineers do would be arguably be far more useful and accurate than any amount of pseudo research.

To illustrate how this works, I submitted an account of my teaching in the area to Education for Chemical Engineers. The paper (Moran, 2017a) was rejected following comments from two reviewers:

“The author has read widely and presents and (sic) interesting set of references. He also declares himself intuitive in understanding, teaching, and design, and this is reflected in the MS. While there are a number of promising moments and flashes of insight, the argument never develops into a solid, evidence-based contribution to knowledge.”

“The text is peppered at regular intervals with inflammatory comments. If the intent is to build a bridge between practice and academe, it seems counterproductive to regularly set of fireworks in the midst of the conversation. Dismissing an alternate perspective is no substitute for the deep thought required to understand a different perspective and successfully argue for an alternate framework.”

The first reviewer seemingly requires me to prove something I know from decades of experience (and I suspect they do not) by reference to what they consider ‘evidence’. The second cannot even see the content of the article past their offence at its mere expression. I will discuss this phenomenon more later.

I would argue that any requirement in academic debate to give full credence to opposing viewpoints, when credible evidence for such opposing viewpoints is entirely lacking amounts to an insistence on false balance.

Okrent's law states that ‘The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true’. The argument being made by the reviewer is a form of the logical fallacy of the argument to moderation. My carefully validated views on the nature of the profession I have practiced for more than twenty-five years are true, however unpopular they are with non-practitioners.

As an academic supporter wrote in a letter of support for me’ It can be emotionally challenging for an established engineering educator to realise that there are complex aspects of practice knowledge of which he or she is almost completely unaware. I have personally witnessed the resulting insecurity among my colleagues on numerous occasions.’

It has consequently been very difficult to obtain engagement with academics with my approach, though it has been cited by Ventura-Medina & Hapgood (2013). I published a piece in the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)’s Prism Magazine (Moran 2016e), made a presentation on it at an IChemE Education Subject Interest Group workshop and gave a poster presentation at an IET conference (Moran 2017b).

In fact, my repeated attempts to engage academia have been considered too controversial in some circles and resulted ultimately in several official complaints to my former professional body-(all since defeated). Apparently merely holding and expressing such opinions was considered by some a form of professional misconduct, on the grounds that it was ‘injurious to academics’. For many in academia and professional engineering bodies, the issues I have raised remain taboo and a true scholarly debate on these issues may never be possible.

#seanmoran #chemicalengineering #education #icheme #processdesign #teachingengineering