June 15, 2019
June 15, 2019
October 19, 2019
Liberal Education/Engineering & Society
Some of the earliest discussions of “soft skills” within ASEE suggested that the term was outdated. In one sense, that assertion was accurate. The earliest recorded use of the term occurred in a 1972 report from a conference sponsored by the U.S. Continental Army Command. Even at that early stage of the terminology, participants in that conference recognized “that the use of the terms ‘Soft Skill’ and ‘Hard Skill’ [should] be discontinued” (p. I-2). Over forty-five years later, we seem not to have accomplished that discontinuation. The paper we propose is a historical and philosophical inquiry into why the terminology of soft versus hard skills has been so persistent, why it is problematic, and how we might be able to move beyond it.
The 1972 report defined soft skills as “job-related skills involving actions affecting primarily people and paper” (p. II-4) that could not be done by machines and tellingly concluded that “Those job junctions about which we know a good deal are hard skills and those about which we know very little are soft skills” (p. II-7). This conclusion bears remarkable resemblance to a remark made to one of the authors of this paper at an ABET annual meeting in the late 1990s: “Soft is what an engineer calls anything he [sic] doesn’t understand.”
In this paper, we propose to delineate the history of the term “soft skills” as it has been used in engineering education and consider how we might move beyond the limitations of that terminology. Both the “soft” and the “skills” elements of the concept have been called into question. In both categories, alternatives have been proposed, but none has become widely accepted. What has become clear is that, whatever these “soft skills” are, they are significant predictors of future success both inside and outside of engineering. In a recently published paper, Donaldson (2017) has suggested that understanding and influencing sociotechnical systems requires both understanding the “ilities”—“repeatability, predictability auditability, quality, reliability, flexibility, scalability, etc.” and the “ologies,” which “emerge from the interaction of people in the systems and have profound implications” (p. 467). The concept of “ologies” captures the numerous ways in which the social sciences and humanities provide an intellectual foundation for a meaningful, operational understanding of the ability to act within and to influence (rather than control) sociotechnical systems.
Neeley, K. A. (2019, June), Stuck on the Verge or Perpetually Reinventing? What Papers from the 2018 Annual Conference Tell Us about Change and Continuity in Liberal Education for Engineers Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2--33288
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2019 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015