Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 2155

Issues Driving Reform of Faculty Reward Systems to Advance Professional Graduate Engineering Education: Differentiating Characteristics Between Scientific Research and Engineering D. A. Keating,1 T. G. Stanford,1 J. M. Snellenberger,2 D. H. Quick,2 I. T. Davis,3 J. P. Tidwell,4 D. R. Depew,5 G. R. Bertoline,5 M. J. Dyrenfurth5 A. L. McHenry,6 D. D. Dunlap,7 S. J. Tricamo8

University of South Carolina 1/ Rolls-Royce Corporation 2 / Raytheon Missile Systems 3 The Boeing Company 4/ Purdue University 5 / Arizona State University East 6 Western Carolina University 7/New Jersey Institute of Technology 8

Abstract

This is the second paper in the special panel session focusing on issues driving reform of faculty reward systems to advance professional graduate engineering education for creative engineering practice and to stimulate leadership of technology innovation to enhance U.S. competitiveness. This paper addresses the characteristics that differentiate the pursuits of basic academic scientific research and of professional engineering practice for the systematic creation, development, and leadership of new and improved technology for purposeful innovation in industry and government service.

1. Background and History

Whereas in the last half of the last century, faculty reward systems that assessed productive faculty scholarship at the nation’s schools of engineering and technology have been based largely on the linear research-driven model of engineering innovation (originating in 1945 U.S. science policy)1, a new model for needs-driven, systematic engineering innovation has emerged in the 21st century. Scientific research and professional engineering practice are no longer viewed as linear, sequential activities. Today, creative professional engineering practice and directed scientific research are viewed as concurrent activities with unique missions and functions.

1.1 Status of U.S. Engineering Graduate Education

Although the U.S. system of engineering graduate education has served our nation well for the further graduate education of academic scientific researchers at the nation’s schools of engineering (and must continue to do so), the professional complement of engineering education must be reinforced substantially to meet new challenges of the 21st century relevant to the practice of engineering itself for the leadership of creative technology development and innovation in industry and government service.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has invested heavily in fostering research-driven graduate education for the further development of the U.S. scientific workforce who perform research at the universities. In hindsight, however, it is now apparent that a balanced investment has not been made in fostering a complementary path of professional graduate education for the further graduate development of the nation’s engineers during this same time period contributing to a long-term underdevelopment of the U.S. engineering workforce and subsequently reflected in the loss of U.S. competitiveness for technology innovation.

“Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright  2004, American Society for Engineering Education”

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Thomas, S., & Keating, D. (2004, June), Issues Driving Reform Of Faculty Reward Systems To Advance Professional Graduate Engineering Education:Differentiating Characteristics Between Scientific Research And Engiineering Paper presented at 2004 Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--13717