The Professional Formation of A Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer:
Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy

by
YURI A. ALEXEICHENKO
WORKING PAPERS
Centre for Comparative Labour Studies
Department of Sociology
University of Warwick
COVENTRY CV4 7AL
Number 1
August 1995
3.00
ISSN 1360-2020
The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy & Democracy
PAGE i
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
Analysing the nature of engineering: is the technocratic paradigm inevitable?
CHAPTER 2
Technocratic tendencies in professional education and socialisation:
different patterns, similar outcomes?
CONCLUSION
22
REFERENCES
22
APPENDIX A
24
APPENDIX B
27
COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES
WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1
PAGE ii
Abstract
The paper examines the process of becoming a professional engineer in different countries against a backdrop of the
global socio-technological, cultural and environmental contradictions of the modern age. The comparative focus of the
paper is Britain and Belarus. It is suggested that the technocratic paradigm of professional mentality and culture which
until quite recently used to be characteristic of most efficient engineers nowadays becomes increasingly incompatible
with the progress of national economies and human civilization in general. The argumentation is developed to stress the
urgent need for democratically-minded technical workers with a more rounded, interdisciplinary approach and integrated
vision of technology-practice.
On the basis of original research evidence and published materials from analogous studies the roots and reasons for an
apparent technocratic bias in engineering students consciousness are analysed. They are seen to be linked to the nature of
the occupation, which appears to be similar across industrialised countries, and to the patterns of professional education
and socialisation which are quite specific in diverse national contexts. These peculiarities in the formation of technical
workers, determined by the historical differences in the timing and character of industrialisation, are argued to produce
distinct Western and Soviet sub-types of technocracy. Both of them, however, equally hinder the process of
democratisation in the engineering profession.
The possibilities, preconditions and principles of reforms in technical education and training aimed to achieve the
required shift of paradigms in the professional mentality of future engineers are discussed.
Acknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been completed without help and support of many people. I am deeply grateful to Rob
Flynn (Department of Sociology) and Chris March (Faculty of Engineering) from the University of Salford who heavily
contributed to my research project by realising all the field work there. To Prof J.Flower and Prof D.Whitehouse at the
Department of Engineering, University of Warwick I owe particular thanks for giving me access and creating a
favourable atmosphere which made my interviews with their students a pleasure.
I would like to express special gratitude to Simon Clarke for his liberal and friendly style of supervision which has
encouraged me and helped to activate my own analytical capabilities. I owe a great deal indeed to Richard Lampard who
significantly assisted me in coping with the quantitative side of the research. Special thanks are due to Peter Fairbrother,
Tony Elger, Ian Procter and other colleagues at the University of Warwick who helped me to keep my mind open.
Yuri Alexeichenko
The Author
Yuri Alexeichenko was born in Gomel, Belarus, in 1965. He graduated from Gomel State University with a degree in
History and Social Sciences in 1987. From 1987-90 he taught in the Department of Political History and Politology of the
Gomel Polytechnical Institute. Since 1990 he has been a postgraduate student in the Institute of Sociology of the
Belarusian Academy of Sciences. He attended the ESRC/British Council/Soros Summer School for Soviet Sociologists at
the University of Manchester in 1991, and spent the academic year 1993-4 in the Sociology Department at Warwick,
where he held a British Council Scholarship, graduating with an MA in Sociology with distinction. In addition to his
work on the professional training of engineers, Yuri has published on the consequences of Chernobyl, which is close to
his home city of Gomel. Yuri is curently working as a freelance sociologist in Belarus. He can be contacted at Ul.
Golovatskogo 21-60,
Gomel 246028 Belarus, telephone (7) 0232-572541.
PAGE 3
Introduction
This dissertation presents some outcomes of a
research project devoted to the problems of the
professional formation of future engineers within
systems of higher technical education in Belarus and
England, which I started in 1991. Since that time my
sociological world-view and, consequently, the
methodology of collecting, analysing and interpreting
data have undergone a quite deep and painful evolution:
the erosion of a positivist image of sociological
knowledge has been followed by an obsession with a
spirit of radical doubt over the adequacy and validity of
any information about individual and society obtained
by whatever methods. Indeed it is difficult to say at the
moment whether this process has come to an end and
equally to characterise my current research outlook
more precisely and in more detail than by the single
word pluralism`.
This factor has shaped the mode of theoretical
argumentation and the ways of presenting and analysing
empirical materials employed in the dissertation which
one might consider as too patchy, variegated and
lacking articulated adherence to any particular
sociological tradition. The other characteristic feature of
the text is that it tends to provide more questions than
answers, more hypotheses and presuppositions than
theories or solid conclusions.
The latter stems not only from the peculiarities of the
research approach but also from the nature of the
research problem. The process of becoming
professional (either in engineering or in any other
occupation), the emergence and development of ones
professional mentality with the particular pattern of
occupational values, norms, and preferences tending to
define the professional and even the life path of an
individual was never an easy subject to study.
Firstly, the researcher has to deal with the quite
delicate inner sphere of human abilities, inclinations,
interests and choices which are often not clearly
understood even by their possessor. Secondly, because
professional socialisation as an interaction between the
unique inner world of a person and a range of socioprofessional institutions and factors (which are quite
specific in different societies) occurs in a fairly
individual manner and, therefore, requires considerable
discretion in making broad generalisations or universal
conclusions in this area.
However, despite the problems and limitations
involved one can hardly deny the importance of studies
devoted to the formation of professional consciousness
and culture of different occupational groups under
contemporary conditions of global technological, socioeconomic, geopolitical and ecological transformations
and challenges. Profound research seems to be
particularly essential in the case of such professional
strata as engineers and scientists who play a very
significant role in any modern society and who are able
substantially to influence the future development of

their countries and of human civilization in general.
There is a vast range of arguments to prove the key
role of engineering and science in modern life. We can
look at the situation from the point of view of the
Warwick University engineering undergraduates who
argue mainly on the basis of common-sense and day-today experience that:
Engineering has basically a critical role in
society today In the world around us theres a
very few things we can actually think of that has
not come from an engineering process Society
now is basically engineered(2 nd year electric
and manufacturing systems engineering
students)
We can draw upon the historical argumentation of
Glover and Kelly who state that human beings are
engineers by definition. From early ages onwards man
is homo faber, the maker and doer, and it is no accident
that historical epochs or periods are named after
materials, artefacts or energy sources e.g. the Bronze
Age, the Computer Age, the Atomic Age (Glover &
Kelly 1987: 20-22).
Or we can enter the highly abstract domain of a
distinguished social theorist who finds the scientist,
technician and engineer among the figures central to the
expert systems which are one of the most essential
characteristics of the late modern age (Giddens 1991:
18-21).
Further argumentation on the issue, involving both a
more detailed analysis of engineerings impact on the
contemporary process of technological change and
socio-economic globalisation and a review of the
position and role of technical workers in the former
USSR, can be found in my paper Training of Engineers
under
Economic
Restructuring
and
Work
Transformation: A Comparative Analysis`. This essay
also stresses the centrality of engineering work and of
the employees who carry it out, in the social landscape
of industrialised societies.
To recognise this does not mean accepting the
predictions of post-industrial` theorists about the
replacement of the old power elite by the newly
powerful stratum of scientific and technical experts who
will establish the rule of pure rationality and impartial
calculations all over the world. One could hardly
disagree with the heavy but justified criticism imposed
on such theoretical constructions by different authors
(see, for instance: Giddens 1973: 25564; Whalley
1986: 111; Glover 1992 etc.). None of these critics,
however, deny the evident tendency of growth in the
number and influence of high tech industries and
technical experts, which seems to have become
universal across the community of industrialised
countries during recent decades. And this is the point
which makes apparent the importance of the present

papers research concern.
It seeks to go beyond quite well-elaborated issues of
the class position of technical workers in different
societies (Perrucci 1973; Whalley 1986; Lane 1989;
Smith 1990; Lee & Smith 1992; Meiksins & Smith
1993b) because it is not very significant for my analysis
whether engineers are able to become a new power elite
or whether they will remain servants of power`,
whether they become the new service class of trusted
employees`, or the new working class etc. What really
matters is the rapidly increasing impact of their
professional performance and mentality on the life of
society in broad terms. The way of thinking, the logic of
decision-making, the system of values and preferences
of a person educated and socialised as a professional
engineer become nowadays more and more important
for the fate of separate countries and humankind in
general. This applies, regardless of whether the
technical worker acts in a normal` way as an
engineering expert, or performs a managerial job, or is
found at the top of a political hierarchy.
In this context the crucial problem is that the
technocratic orientation of consciousness implying the
single-minded pursuit of narrowly defined technical
goals and the application of strictly engineering reason
to the solution of the emergent problems (professional
tunnel vision`) which was and is characteristic of the
vast majority of efficient engineers no longer suffices to
deal with the global socio-technological challenges of
the modern age. Moreover, the growing domination of
technocracy as a pervading ethos, a world-view which
subsumes aesthetics, religion and customary thought to
the rationalist mode`, which tends to neglect sociocultural and moral aspects of human activities and to
regard human beings themselves as nothing more than
means to the achievement of technical imperatives` is
seen as a very dangerous tendency both in the West and
the East (Giddens 1973: 258-59; Krylova 1990: 32-33).
All in all, this necessitates the replacement of the
current technocratic paradigm of engineering
mentality and professional culture, organised around
one master value (usually technical excellence), by a
democratic paradigm that presupposes a balance
between different values: technical efficiency, market
competitiveness, users needs, cultural and aesthetic
appropriateness etc. and also related professional, socionormative and communicative skills. It is this integrated
vision of technology-practice that should condition
engineering activities and decision-making in the late
modern age.
How far are the future engineers aware of this societal
need for the changing of paradigms? Does this process
of change really occur at the level of modern
engineering education and training in different
countries? What factors tend to perpetuate the
technocratic paradigm and what is it necessary (and
possible) to do to break up this paradigm?
PAGE 4
These are the main questions which my paper seeks to

answer. As already mentioned, the research
methodology employed in the work presents an
outcome of the evolution which my originally MarxistLeninist approach has undergone as a result of my
encounter and acquaintance with the Western, and
particularly British, sociological tradition. Having been
gradually disillusioned in Soviet predominantly
quantitative understanding and ways of studying the
problems in question (their critical analysis can be
found in my paper How I Studied the Education and
Training of Engineering Undergraduates within a
Framework of Marxist-Leninist Methodology`) I tried
to use in my subsequent work the most popular Western
predominantly qualitative research and analytical
tools.
In this context my methodology owes much to such
traits of the best British sociological studies as: the
close interrelation between theoretical and empirical
levels of analysis; the investigation of individual
behaviour within a framework of power relations, class
and group interests; well-developed historical and
institutional approaches etc.
On the other hand, I was not completely satisfied with
the overwhelming domination of qualitative methods
which is characteristic of most Western sociological
studies in the area of my interests. Being quite opposite
to the Soviet writings that present respondents as
numbers without a face, as anonymous bearers of
certain values and qualities (a sort of sociological`
technocracy), Western publications from my point of
view leave too much room for subjectivity and
voluntarism in their interpretation of rich, flexible, and
undoubtedly individualised data. As a consequence,
many sociological texts sometimes resemble a good
piece of journalistic work rather than studies in social
sciences. The other problem which, to my mind, lacks
satisfactory solution within a framework of qualitative
methods is the degree of representativeness of
interviews, case-studies, and similar sources of
information.
How far is it correct to base conclusions and
generalisations about the whole social structure upon
data, which, however rich and deep, are merely received
from a single organisation and/or from a significantly
small (in comparison with surveys) number of
respondents who form a tiny part of the studied
structure? How can one be sure that the informants
randomly selected for interviewing are typical enough
to represent the population of interest when they
themselves sometimes find this difficult to define? What
can guarantee that the respondents are frank enough in
their answers and that there is not any influence of an
interviewer on them? These and other related questions
still remain unanswered for me.
Thus, having recognised a range of significant
advantages intrinsic to qualitative methods, I
nevertheless came to the conclusion that qualitative
methodology cannot be an exclusive road for the
development of my research. If this sociological study

aims to discuss the problems of democratisation and
humanitarian enrichment in engineering education and
socialisation then it appears to be incompatible with the
monopoly of any single methodology which would tend
to impoverish the social sciences both theoretically and
empirically.
My sympathy is on the side of those scholars who like
Huby and Dix tried to bridge the old-established gap
between quantitative and qualitative research methods,
to design such strategies of studying complex social
phenomena in which different methodologies played
appropriate roles` (1992: 179).
It is this understanding of democracy in research
approaches and methods that I am trying to employ as a
key methodological principle in my dissertation and I
hope that this attempt is not completely fruitless.
The empirical basis of my work is constituted from
data of both quantitative and qualitative character. The
original quantitative materials were collected during
two case studies of the higher engineering education
institutions in Belarus (Gomel Polytechnic Institute:
academic year 1990/91) and England (Faculty of
Engineering, University of Salford: academic year
1991/92) by means of questionnaire surveys of the fulltime final year undergraduates (Nbel= 200; Neng= 70)
and members of the teaching staff (N bel= 60; Neng=
17).1
1
The other main characteristics of the survey

samples are:
Undergraduates.
Sex: male - 53.5%, female - 46.5% (Belarus); male 84.3%, female - 15.7% (England). Age: 18-21 years
old - 28%, 22-24 years old - 58%, 25 and older - 14%
(Belarus); 18-21 years old - 24.3%, 22-24 years old 62.9%, 25 and older - 12.9% (England).
Specialisation: technology of pressure processing 10%, technology of industrial moulding - 14.5%,
economics and management of mechanical engineering
- 11.5%, electrical engineering and industrial
electronics - 29.5%, mechanical engineering - 27.5%,
design of aerial and location systems - 7.0% (Belarus);
civil engineering - 47.1%, mechanical engineering 32.9%, electronic and electrical engineering - 20.0%
(England). Marital status: single - 55.5%, divorced 1.0%, married - 43.5% (Belarus); single - 95.7%,
married - 4.3% (England).
Teaching staff.
Sex: male - 80.0%, female - 20.0% (Belarus); male 94.1%, female - 5.9% (England). Amount of years in
teaching career: under 10 years - 36.6%, 10-20 years 40.0%, 20 and more - 23.3% (Belarus); under 10 years
- 29.4%, 10-20 years - 41.2%, 20 and more - 29.4%
(England). Specialisation: technology of pressure
processing - 10%, technology of industrial moulding 23.3%, economics and management of mechanical
engineering - 15.0%, electrical engineering and
industrial electronics - 21.7%, mechanical engineering
PAGE 5
The qualitative insights are provided by data obtained

from the collective/group interviewing of second and
third year undergraduates (3 males and 1 female) in
electrical and manufacturing systems engineering at the
University of Warwick, academic year 1993/94.
I am quite aware that my original data set, due to its
restricted size and the limitations related to research
design, validity and sampling which were scrutinized in
my paper Some Problems of Quantitative Comparative
Research: From the Experience of Surveying
Engineering Undergraduates in Belarus and England`, is
not sufficient to form the base for the whole
argumentation. That is why research evidence from my
surveys and interviews is used more to illustrate rather
than to prove my theoretical concepts, which are
informed by a much broader analytical context. The
latter consists of my own experience of teaching
engineering undergraduates, meeting and talking to
engineering educators and practical workers in Belarus
and Great Britain, combined with empirical data and
conceptual elements derived from similar studies in
various countries. All in all, these enable me to proceed
in search of the answers to the above-mentioned main
research questions of this paper.
The first chapter contains an insight into the nature of
the engineering profession, which is analysed as a
source of technocratic bias in the consciousness of
technical students in different countries. The
undergraduates awareness of the contemporary skill
requirements of engineering experts, and the way in
which these new socio-occupational demands affect the
professional formation of future engineers, are
considered there as well.
The second chapter deals with nationally and
culturally specific aspects of engineering education and
training (EET) in different countries (with the
predominant emphasis on comparison between England
and Belarus) to reveal how those institutional
peculiarities influence the technocratic bias of
undergraduates consciousness. In this context I try to
distinguish Soviet and Western types of technocracy.
Finally, the concluding part discusses the possibilities
of reforms and improvements in EET systems aimed to
achieve the required shift of paradigms in the
professional mentality and culture of technical workers.
- 23.3%, design of aerial and locations systems - 6.7%

(Belarus); civil engineering - 35.3%, mechanical
engineering - 41.2%, electronic and electrical
engineering - 23.5% (England). Marital status: single 3.3%, divorced - 3.3%, married - 93.3% (Belarus);
single - 17.6%, married - 82.4% (England).
Chapter 1
Analysing the nature of engineering: is the technocratic paradigm
inevitable?
Alongside the developed discussion of significant
diversities in the social organisation of technical work
and the status of being an engineer in different countries
(Yadov 1977; Whalley 1986; Lane 1989; Lawrence
1992; McCormick 1992; Meiksins & Smith 1993a,
1993b) there is always a general recognition of
similarities in the nature and functions of engineering
labour across industrialised economies.
In broad context engineers are assumed to be
technical experts, the translators of industrial design
practice, the masters of production control and
surveillance (Lee & Smith 1992: 2). According to a
more detailed (Soviet style) definition their functions
encompass creative use of scientific knowledge;
designing and building of industrial enterprises,
machinery and equipment; development or application
of production methods based on the systematic use of
different tools, or the design and application of these
tools grounded upon firm knowledge of the principles
involved in their work (Tushko & Khaskelevich 1971:
35). Basically the same characteristics are echoed in the
other literature on the issue published either in the West
or in the East (Cotgrove & Box 1970; Finniston 1980;
Glover & Kelly 1987; Kugel & Nikandrov 1971;
Chugunova 1986; Shepetko 1988).
The majority of writers are unanimous in defining
engineering through its relations to the theoretical body
of scientific knowledge and practical needs of industry
and society. The nature of these relations and, therefore,
of the profession in general appears to be universal and
can be quite exactly characterised by the words of the
engineering undergraduate who argued:
Engineering to me always seemed to be a mode
of binding the practical elements of science
together in a way that pure subjects like maths
and physics dont because they tend to
concentrate on theoretical aspects. From that
point of view engineering is an absolute real life
kind of subject which is directly applicable to
whats going on in reality (2 nd year
undergraduate in manufacturing systems
engineering, University of Warwick).
The main peculiarity of technical work as well as the
chief feature of its distinction from pure science are
explicitly grasped here. Engineering is an application of
scientific principles and laws in search of practical
solutions to real life problems. However, to use
knowledge is not the same as to create it and this is the
main criterion to draw the difference between scientific
and technical jobs. For unlike pure science oriented on
the production of theoretical knowledge engineering is
about making things (Whalley 1986: 57).
From the outset of the profession in the modern world

to make technically efficient things and to keep them
working efficiently were the main responsibilities of an
engineer. To meet them technical workers have required
a certain amount of theoretical knowledge in
mechanics, physics and mathematics which explain the
scientific principles of design and maintenance. The
more complicated technical equipment and machinery
become in the course of technological change, the
deeper the knowledge of the relevant scientific
disciplines that is necessary for engineers. One can
argue that being essentially different from science,
engineering nowadays is increasingly dependent on the
use of scientific knowledge and research results.
Such a close connection with the principles and laws
of precise sciences which are organised in a strictly
rational, logically consistent and systematic way has
had a strong impact on the professional mentality and
world outlook of past and present generations of
technical workers. The dominance of linear logic and
unambiguous problem-solving, the reliance on a
calculus, precision and measurement which are vital to
deal with the technical side of engineering tend to
prevent most engineers from consideration of nontechnological (moral, cultural, ecological etc.)
imperatives involved in their work since the latter are
highly irrational, unmmeasurable and unpredictable
phenomena that could be nothing more than a messy
complication for technically perfect schemes and
solutions.
Thus mathematical correctness and technological
virtuosity appear to be the only criteria and goals of
professional performance for the bulk of efficient
engineers whose overall value system and motivation
are driven by the technocratic master value (Pacey
1983: 124-27). Their adoration of expert rationality and
technical reasoning often finds its extension in the
neglect of the necessity and importance of discussing
complex engineering problems with people from nontechnical disciplines or with the lay public. The others
are not in the focus of the tunnel vision intrinsic to
technocratically minded engineers.
Being widespread among technical workers in
different countries, technocratic values and styles of
thinking orchestrate their preferences, attitudes and
actual efforts in respect of the knowledge, skills, modes
of behaviour etc. that are considered to be characteristic
of a successful engineer. Again the principle of
preference is rational and unambiguous: the knowledge
and skills which are not directly related to the narrow
technical aims of engineering are regarded as
unnecessary and not worth spending time for their
acquisition or development. The net result is a
technocratic model of an efficient engineer easily
transmissible to the students of technical disciplines

who from the outset of their professional education are
exposed to the influence of pure rationality and linear
logic and, therefore, are prepared to reproduce this
model in their own considerations concerning the ideal
image of a contemporary engineer.
This can be illustrated by the tables i and ii (Appendix
A) based on the data from my surveys of engineering
undergraduates in Belarus and England 2 They suggest
that despite some differences in assessment of certain
socio-professional characteristics the general patterns of
preference appear to be very much alike in both
countries, especially in the case of narrow professional
qualities (Table i). The future Belarusian and English
engineers obviously regard themselves to be practical
users of scientific knowledge (highest rank in both
cases is given to skills in practical application of
knowledge) rather than producers of it (unanimous
lowest rank to research and inventional activity).
The contours of the technocratic paradigm in
undergraduates consciousness become more apparent if
one scrutinises Table ii in which judgements about
direct professional virtues are presented alongside those
about broad social, economic, cultural and normative
qualities. There is no doubt about the general
domination of the former which appear to have in
both cases not only similar ranks, but close actual
values of indexes (see qualities No 2, 6, 9) over the
latter which, being assessed quite differently by
Belarusian and English students (see qualities No 1, 8,
10), are, nonetheless, similarly underrated in both cases
against the backdrop of the importance attached to the
main technocratic merits.
Thus the overall picture drawn by Belarusian and
English respondents is close to what Whalley names
the classic image of the engineer (1986: 104) that
implies first of all preference and practical preparedness
to deal with things rather than people. There might be
possession of certain wider skills in areas of
management, economics and finance but they are
considered to be less important and easily acquirable
through learning by doing in the event of promotion to a
corresponding post.
The domination of this image of the technical expert
seems to be tacitly recognised by most Western
comparative studies of EET in Europe, the United
States, and Japan (Lane 1989: 78-81; Lawrence 1992;
McCormick 1988, 1992; Porter 1990: 369, 397, 497,
628-29 etc.). All of these consider the efficiency of
engineering education in different countries according
2
The indices in these and analogous tables in

the text are based on five position ordinal scales (a-b-cd-e, where a = lowest value, e = highest value of the
variable measured). They are calculated according to
the following formula in which absolute number of
responses ascribed to each position of the scale is used:
(-1)a + (-0.5)b + 0c + 0.5d + 1e
I = _________________________________________________
a+b+c+d+e
to a limited number of criteria such as connections with

industry, balance in the curriculum between theoretical
and practical elements of engineering, degree of
attention to managerial aspects and the like. The sociocultural, moral or ecological sides of technical
education are never seriously discussed and are
mentioned, if at all, only as issues unusual for the
normal professional formation of engineers, as in the
case of Porters indication on the aesthetic and
humanistic tradition of Italian EET (1990: 437).
Engineering and education researchers in the former
Soviet Union were more inclined (or obliged) to
speculate with reference to the communist ideal of
harmonised personal development about the necessity
of political (stemming from full commitment to the
policy of CPSU), socio-normative (based on communist
ethics) and cultural (supporting traditions of socialist
realism) qualities for the future engineers. However,
their preoccupation with the mentioned issues and
related practical recommendations (some of them were
extremely relevant) were only a paper fight against
technocratic tendencies in higher education. As to the
real courses in history, philosophy, economics and
social theory which were established as an obligatory
part of EET in the USSR to ensure its
humanitarisation, they were scarce, completely
impregnated with ideological dogmas, often delivered
by low qualified staff and, therefore, tended to devalue
the whole humanitarian project rather than anything else
(Krylova 1990: 32-33; Zobov & Sugakova 1990: 7881).
My own experience of teaching political history for
engineering students showed that most of them
considered classes in humanitarian disciplines at best as
a relaxation, a short funny break between serious
studies and at worse as an annoying and useless waste
of time. It was easy to notice that many of the
undergraduates whom I encountered during the three
years of my teaching career regarded moral problems or
cultural and aesthetic imperatives as something very
distant from their speciality, something which has no
relation to the professional characteristics of a genuine
engineer.
I gained the same impression from my interviews and
conversations with engineering undergraduates at the
University of Warwick. None of them mentioned socionormative or humanitarian aspects when they were
asked about the personal qualities necessary for a
modern engineer. Even economic or managerial skills
occupied very modest, if any, place in their
considerations. The broader values and qualities were
divorced, or in Paseys terms compartmentalized,
from the realm of professional activities in the
consciousness of English as well as Belarusian students,
which I consider to be evidence of a technocratic
paradigm.
This can also be vividly illustrated by the results of
hierarchical clustering of the variables which describe
attitudes of undergraduates from the Gomel Polytechnic
and Salford University towards the broad personal

qualities of a contemporary engineer (Appendix B).
As we see from the dendrograms, there are three main
clusters of qualities which appear to have similar
contents in both cases. The average indices of
importance calculated for each cluster on the basis of
table ii (Appendix A) evidence that unanimous
domination is taken by cluster iii encompassing direct
professional merits (its indexs value is 0.59 in the
Belarusian case and 0.54 in the English). Clusters i
(0.32 for Belarus; 0.20 for England) and ii (0.05 for
Belarus; 0.32 for England) describing socio-normative,
cultural, ecological regulators and characteristics of
personal behaviour lag behind, and in both cases are
more closely connected with each other rather than with
the cluster iii.
All in all this suggests that future engineers are
inclined to regard their occupation as culturally and
morally neutral, to separate pure professional qualities
from ones humanitarian values and views. The
importance of the latter is not completely denied (on the
contrary, some of the social characteristics are rated
high enough), but nevertheless they are seen as
something very different from technical work.
This vision of engineering appears to be increasingly
at odds with the general tendencies and problems of
global development in the late modern age. In times
when the societal challenges and dilemmas of
technology-driven civilization call for remoralising of
social life, when repressed existential issues, related
not just to nature but to the moral parameters of
existence as such, press themselves back on to the
agenda (Giddens 1991: 224), the technocratic illusion
of value-free expert rationality and the corresponding
logic of problem-solving and performance can no
longer be the main characteristics of efficient technical
or any other professional labour.
The growing recognition of the necessity to break
down the technocratic paradigm of engineering
thinking, to radically alter existing principles of
technical education, is expressed not only by
philosophers, sociologists, or educational experts
(Thring 1980; Pacey 1983; Smirnova 1989;
Krokinskaya 1990). It is shared by some practical
engineers and industrial designers who have exposed
the dangers of tunnel vision and self-expressive
individualism in engineering and articulated a new
system of demands and criteria for the socioprofessional formation and performance of technical
workers. Its acceptance across industrialised countries is
argued to be the main precondition of design for
survival and survival through design (Mara 1978;
Tomalin et al 1982; Papanek 1984; Fedorova 1990:
119).
Moving from the societal level of civilizational
rescue to mundane engineering responsibilities in the
work place we must admit that the pressure of new skill
requirements (which, in fact, reflects the global
processes) is more and more tangible here as well. As a
result, young engineers in the former Soviet Union

blame EET not only for the gaps in their professional
knowledge and practical skills but for the lack of
economic and managerial preparedness, for poor
understanding of human psychology and social relations
(Krokinskaya 1990: 27-28).
In the West, changing demands on the personal
qualities of technical and other highly educated experts
vividly manifest themselves in the labour market
through the recruitment policies of most companies
which increasingly seek to employ flexible and
responsible individuals with developed socio-normative
qualities rather than single-minded specialists in narrow
subjects (Windolf et al 1988; Moelker 1994).
The more detailed consideration of the new
requirements for the professional and humanitarian
preparedness of engineers that are originated on macro
and micro levels by contemporary technological change
and associated global transformations of the socionatural environment can be found in my paper Training
of Engineers under Economic Restructuring and Work
Transformation: A Comparative Analysis. Developing
the line of its argumentation, it seems important to
stress here that the growing social preoccupation with
political, economic, moral and cultural aspects of
practical technology does not mean that traditional
requirements of the technical rationality, reliability and
efficiency of engineering labour and its products are no
longer essential. On the contrary, modern life is
dependent on the stable and precise functioning of
numerous technical devices, systems or processes as
never before. And nobody is really interested and able
to stop the further development of human ingenuity,
research and inventive genius which are explicit
expressions of the very nature of humankind driven by
curiosity, interest and a desire for excellence.
The point is that nowadays the value of technical
virtuosity should not be the one and only master in the
professional mentality of engineers. Economic reasons
and users or need values must be accepted as issues of
the same importance. Technical workers need to
combine deep knowledge of technology and
engineering with a clear understanding of the
ecological, socio-economic, political and cultural
environment in which technology and engineering take
place. Social and moral responsibility should have the
same impact on engineering decision-making as the
pursuit of mathematical harmony and technical
sweetness. The balance and integration of all these
different values, skills and qualities or, in other words,
the democratic paradigm of professional mentality and
activities, is what engineers in all industrialised
countries really have to have in order efficiently to meet
global and local challenges of civilizational
development in the age of late modernity.
The increasing social demand on democraticallyminded engineers is not a secret for people within
national systems of EET. Engineering students and
teaching staff are well aware of the changing socio-
professional requirements and feel a certain pressure to

keep up with them. Thus one can regard the following
students views on the issue as quite typical:
An engineer who simply knows about
engineering is probably not a great deal of use
to a company To gain any sort of
responsibility and to get anywhere within the
engineering, I think, youve got to have a much
better appreciation and a sort of wider picture
(2nd year undergraduate in manufacturing
systems engineering, University of Warwick)
professional training quality (28.6%) were quite far

behind.
Thereve always been equivocal relations

between engineering and marketing We [i.e.
engineers] tend to just specifically make good
engineering products but there is no market for
them So, we just tend to make things
[giggling] for our own satisfaction. From that
point of view we need to be generally a lot more
aware of what surrounds us and whats required
rather than fulfilling our own purposes (3 rd
year undergraduate in electrical engineering,
University of Warwick).
The same ideas of conformity with end-users values
and economic reasons are observed in the opinions of
the engineering undergraduates discussing the main
factors one should take into consideration to make a
good technical solution:
[Adam:] The likely use of the product, I think,
is probably one of the most important factors
If youre engineering a product to last for years
and years youve got to think about the quality,
the materials, instruction and anything else
[Kerry:] Yes, and cost is always a consideration
with any product So, generally speaking, we
need to be flexible in our solutions, dont we
(2nd year undergraduates in manufacturing
systems engineering, University of Warwick).
The analysis of data from my surveys in Gomel and
Salford also suggests some interesting evidence for the
discussion. Thus, when the undergraduates were asked
the question: If you were a lecturer, what aspects of
your work with students would you pay most attention
to? the three most often ticked options from the
proposed list of seven appeared to be the same in both
countries, although the pattern of preferences within the
leading three was different.
In the Belarusian case there were two top aspects of
almost equal significance: improvement of professional
training quality (ticked by 59% of respondents) and
encouragement of independent thinking and work
skills (52.5%), the third place was occupied by the
option encouraging a sense of professional duty and
responsibility (22.5%).
The English undergraduates showed their strong
preference for encouragement of independent thinking
and work skills (72.9%) while the next two most
popular options encouraging a sense of professional
duty and responsibility (37.1%) and improvement of
What is the most interesting, however, is that in both

countries the choice of lecturers and tutors who were
offered the same list of seven options to select the most
important aspects of their work resulted in the same
leading three. The preferences of Belarusian staff were
given to encouragement of independent thinking and
work skills (ticked by 83.3% of respondents),
improvement of professional training quality (76.7%)
and encouraging a sense of professional duty and
responsibility (37.1%). In the English case the most
important aspects were encouragement of independent
thinking and work skills (88%), encouraging a sense
of professional duty and responsibility (41%) and
improvement of professional training quality (35%).
The significant conclusion which can be supported by
these results is that, despite the traditionally strong
position of technocratic preferences, moral issues and
related socio-normative values little by little struggle
their way up to positions of high significance in the
consciousness of students and teachers of engineering in
different countries.
Another sign of recognition for a humanitarian agenda
within EET is the positive attitudes of teaching staff to
the enhancing of ethical aspects in the educational
process. The necessity of 'ethical disciplines, an
engineering Hippocratic oath to regulate the moral
spectrum of engineering is often accentuated by
adherents of an integrated vision of technology and
design (Thring 1980: 231-32; Pacey 1983: 112-13).
This attention stems from the understanding of
professional ethics as an influential socio-personal
phenomenon aimed to establish balance and
cooperation between different values and qualities of
an engineer which, as we saw, are the key principles for
the democratic reformation of experts thinking.
Table 1 suggests that the majority of the people

directing the professional formation of future engineers
in Gomel Polytechnic and the University of Salford
tend to accept the mentioned socio-normative concerns.
However, to recognise the necessity of doing
something is not the same as actually doing it. And as
table 2 shows, the real integration of ethical elements
into the processes of engineering education is far from
being good enough, especially in the English case.
As to the obvious advantage of Belarusian lecturers
and tutors in their reported efforts to present moral
aspects of engineering to the undergraduates, it should
be regarded with a certain criticism. One must take into
account a long-established tradition of Soviet life in
general and education in particular to take the desirable
for the real as well as a great subjectivity in
understanding and interpretation of such general
wordings as discuss often by different people. After
all, as we saw already and will see later the outcome of
ethical efforts by Belarusian teaching staff in terms of
value system and world-view of their students is very
much alike to that of their English colleagues. This is
also confirmed by the fact that engineering educators in
both institutions are similarly interested in the further
development of EETs ethical aspects (Table 1).
In summary, I would argue that universality in the
nature and functions of engineering, implying the
practical application of pure scientific knowledge and
analytical methods to the solution of technical
problems, also manifests itself in a similar influence on
engineers occupational mentality and general way of
thinking regardless of national and cultural peculiarities
of their education and professional socialisation. Due to
this, technical workers across industrialised countries
are prone to follow a technocratic paradigm in their
value orientation, problem-solving, and practical
Table 1
Attitudes of Belarusian and English teaching staff to the necessity of
enhancing the ethical orientation of engineering education and
training.
Answers to question:
'It is necessary to pay
Belarusian
English
Total
more attention to ethical
staff
staff
problems when training
future engineers?
No. (%)
No. (%)
No. (%)
Yes
38 (63.3)
10 (58.8)
48 (62.3)
Difficult to say
20 (33.3)
5 (29.4)
25 (32.5)
No
2 ( 3.3)
2 (11.8)
4 ( 5.2)
60 (100)
17 (100)
77 (100)
Chi-square= 1.92
p= .383
activities, while the global transformations of the

human and natural environment, informed by rapid
technological change, demand a democratic reformation
and remoralising of experts thinking.
Although the necessity for a new integrated

vision of engineering, technology and
industrial design is increasingly recognised by
technical students, educators, and practical
workers, the profession is still slow to
change (Papanek 1984: xv) and the required
shift of paradigms is still far from being
accomplished either in the West or in the East.
To find an explanation for this quite
controversial situation one obviously needs to
move on from a generalising review of the
engineering profession to the analysis of
historical and institutional peculiarities
inherent to the occupational education and
socialisation of engineers in different
countries. They will be in the focus of the
following chapter.
Table 2
The actual referring of Belarusian and English teaching staff to issues
of engineering ethics during the educational process.
'Do you discuss the
Belarusian
English
Total
problems of engineers'
staff
staff
professional ethics
when teaching students?
No. (%)
No. (%)
No. (%)
Yes, often
35 (58.3)
4 (23.5)
39 (50.6)
Difficult to say
24 (40.0)
9 (52.9)
33 (42.9)
No, never
1 ( 1.7)
4 (23.5)
5 ( 6.5)
60 (100)
17 (100)
77 (100)
Chi-square= 13.44
p= .001
Chapter 2
Technocratic tendencies in professional education and socialisation:
different patterns, similar outcomes?
Unlike the nature and functions of technical labour the
process of becoming a professional engineer in different
countries tends to significantly variegate. The majority
of commentators explaining national diversities in the
organisation and operating of EET look at specifics of
the route to industrialisation that was taken by a
particular society, at the historical patterns and
outcomes of struggle among employers, technical
workers, the state, and preindustrial forces which have
influenced the educational system and professional
socialisation routines, as well as broad social attitudes
and stereotypes concerning the occupation (Glover &
Kelly 1987; Lane 1989; Meiksins & Smith 1993a;
Meiksins & Smith 1993b). In this context national
peculiarities are seen as the summation of historical
differences of the timing and entry into industrial
capitalism [which] is reproduced through a societys
institutions(Lee & Smith 1992: 8).
According to these criteria institutions of engineering
education and professional socialisation in the UK and
ex-USSR present two extremely opposite cases. The
Anglo-Saxon tradition of EET explicitly reflects the
experience of the country which was historically the
first to industrialise under conditions of laissez-faire
principles in state industrial and educational policies,
with the persistence of certain preindustrial patterns and
routines. As to the Soviet EET presented in the
Belarusian case, it is a vivid example of an educational
tradition formed and developed under strongest state
control in conditions of late forced industrialisation
and revolutionary break-up with the past. Although it
is not possible to consider in detail the cases of other
industrial countries within the limits of the present
paper, I would argue that their traditions of EET
informed by the same factors (character of
industrialisation, degree of state involvement etc.)
combine in different ways the features of the two
extremes in question and, therefore, can be placed
somewhere in between them.
The national diversities in the timing and pattern of
industrialisation appear to result in the different social
status and prestige of engineering across industrialised
economies. Thus in Great Britain the minor role of the
state in capitalist development and the preservation of
pre-industrial vestiges in the organisation of technical
work, and in employers and public attitudes towards it,
have determined the relatively low status of engineers
in comparison to other professionals or to their
counterparts in mainland Europe and America. These
issues are scrutinized in my paper The Character and
Extent of the Professionalisation of Engineers in Britain
and the Implications of This for Their Position within
Management, published as paper 3 in this series, which
presents a brief historical outlook of attempts

undertaken by technical workers in this country to move
up the ladder of social prestige.
The status of being an engineer in the former Soviet
Union has undergone more dramatic transformations. At
the beginning of broad industrialisation in the country
(192830) engineers and technicians were in great
demand. The involvement of the Soviet state in
organising and running nation-wide EET, in
encouraging bright young people to study engineering,
in providing material and propagandist support for the
profession was much greater and more energetic than in
the case of the other later industrialisers like France or
Germany because of the threatening international
atmosphere and the socio-political and ideological
meaning attached to industrialisation in Soviet Russia.
The totalitarian concentration of all available
resources on a few strategic directions brought
amazingly quick results in the sense of industrial
development, as well as the expansion of general and
technical education. In the enormous country where
before 1917 professional engineers were educated in
extremely limited numbers by scarce institutions (none
of them was on the territory of Belarus), a broad
network of specialised secondary and higher
educational establishments producing thousands of
qualified technical workers per year was organised
within three decades. Engineering became one of the
most popular and prestigious professions which
provided quite high incomes, especially in the first
years of industrialisation. The peak of its popularity
was, probably, attained in the 1960s. By that time the
pace of increase in number of engineers and technicians
employed in the national economy of the USSR had
reached a record level: during the period between 1960
1970 the number of Soviet technical workers grew from
700.000 to 2.493.000 i.e. 3.6 times (Suleimanov 1990:
31-32). It was a glorious epoch when the
achievements of Soviet aerospace technology, that
ensured a breakthrough of humankind into outer space,
together with pioneering the peaceful use of nuclear
energy, created for science and engineering an
additional halo of attractiveness in the eyes of Soviet
youth and made technology and education experts in the
West scrutinize EET in the USSR in search of the
secrets of Russian success (Krokinskaya 1990: 23;
Phillips 1992: 52).
In the following decades, however, things have
gradually changed. The continuous planned expansion
in the production of technical workers (in 1974 the
number of specialists graduated from engineering
institutes in the USSR was 6 times higher than in the
USA (Yadov 1977: 11)) was not accompanied by the
proper use of engineering labour in the national

economy. The over-educated technical workers found
themselves exposed to progressive routinization in the
working place, where the main emphasis was on noncreative, production functions, where their technical
knowledge was under-utilized and their access to
research and development was circumscribed. Besides,
as a result of a deliberate policy of social equality, the
income differential between engineers and manual
workers has been significantly narrowed and, moreover,
some categories of the latter became much better paid
than the former. In recent years, for instance, the
average salary of an engineering graduate was half the
average wages earned by a skilled manual worker of the
same age (Rutkevich & Rubina 1988: 88-89; Babosov
1983: 94). The bright image of Soviet engineering faded
to black and the profession has gone down the ladder of
prestige (Kryshtanovskaya 1988; Lisovsky 1990a: 1213).
Thus one can argue that two cases of industrialisation
diametrically opposite in the sense of time, pace, state
involvement etc. have eventually resulted in
approximately the same relatively low social status of
engineering both in the UK and ex-USSR (Belarus).
The key difference of the stories, however, is that
British engineers have more or less successfully
struggled to raise their prestige to the level of classical
professions, to gloss over the stigma of manual labour
historically associated with technical work in this
country. On the contrary, the social rating of their Soviet
counterparts, which from the outset was high and
buttressed by formal credentials, different job character,
level of authority and payment etc., is declining to the
level of skilled manual workers and the graduate barrier
appears to be the last significant divide between two
categories of employees.
This difference in the backgrounds against which
school leavers in both countries make their vocational
choice, to my mind, tends to manifest itself in quite
diverse reasons informing the choice of an engineering
career in England and Belarus.
In the British case, the relatively low status of
technical occupations appears as a sort of guarantee that
most of the students enter an engineering course not
because it leads to a highly fashionable or prestigious
profession, but because of their genuine interest in
engineering itself. Some of the decisions in favour of
engineering probably involve consideration of future
prospects in technological change which promise a
further increase in the status and importance of
engineering in society. It is difficult to say how far these
considerations really influence the vocational choice of
English students, but they are definitely mentioned in
advertising literature produced by Departments of
Engineering in this country.
Most people who entered engineering education in the
former Soviet Union in the 1980s (i.e. those who were
in the last year of their course at the time of my
research) seem to have no illusions about any bright
prospects of technological change in their country or

about the possible revival of the social status of
engineering. That is why the interest in the nuts and
bolts of the profession, which was not really
acknowledged in the society, has influenced their
vocational choice quite moderately. What was more
important is the possession of higher education
credentials which, regardless of the specialism, were
able to provide good career prospects in many other
areas more respected than engineering and, generally,
were a phenomenon of noticeable prestige in the exUSSR. There was also an increasing number of students
who did not take any of these reasons into account.
They entered engineering education by chance in order
to put off a decision to work for some years or simply
to have fun in a student environment. As a rule, they
had quite poor achievements at secondary school, but
nevertheless were accepted onto the course because
engineering education did not attract enough bright
applicants whereas it was necessary to fulfil somehow
the state plan for the intake into EET across the country.
The discussed divergence in factors and reasons
influencing undergraduates choice of speciality in the
UK and ex-USSR can be traced on the data from the
surveys in Gomel and Salford presented in Table iii
(Appendix A). It shows that the principal reasons of
undertaking professional education and training for
English undergraduates were interest in the occupation
itself, orientation to the creative character of
engineering which enables them to realise their abilities.
The general benefits of higher education were also
taken into serious account by the future English
engineers while making their choice of speciality. These
data appear to be in conformity with the results of a
nation-wide survey of engineering graduates published
by Berthoud and Smith, who found the same principal
reasons to determine their respondents decision to take
a course in engineering (1980: 65).
In the Belarusian case, orientation to higher education
is the only obviously leading motive whereas interest
in profession, which has the second highest (but
already negative) value of the influence index, lags far
behind. The comparatively high meaning of accidental
circumstances among the rest of the factors indicates
the much more sporadic, ad hoc character of vocational
decisions made by Belarusian students.
Thus we can suggest that English undergraduates
make their choice of degree in engineering more
consciously than their Belarusian counterparts, who
from the outset tend to be less committed to the quite
randomly chosen profession.
Apart from the mentioned divergence in evolution of

professional status, this phenomenon can be explained
by a narrow specialisation in the last years of British
connected with their degree course, while the share of

such students in Belarusian sample was 13%.
Table 3
Staff assessment of undergraduates awareness of the future profession at the
beginning of their professional education
Answers on question:
How many first year
Belarusian
English
Total
students have the correct
staff
staff
image of their future
profession?
No. (%)
No. (%)
No. (%)
Majority have the correct
image
Some students have
the correct image
Majority do not have
the correct image
Practically no one has
the correct image
3 ( 5.0)
2 (11.8)
5 ( 6.5)
23 (38.3)
11 (64.7)
34 (44.2)
29 (48.3)
3 (17.6)
32 (41.6)
5 ( 8.3)
1 ( 5.9)
6 ( 7.8)
60 (100)
17 (100)
77 (100)
Maintel-Haenszel Chi-square= 4.37
p= .036
secondary schools (A-levels). It develops interests and

abilities of the students in a certain direction, unlike the
Soviet secondary schooling, which followed until quite
recently the practice of equal attention to sciences and
humanities with little possibility for specialisation.
There might be other explanations as well.
The bigger vocational awareness of English
undergraduates is confirmed by the fact that the
proportion of their tutors and lecturers, who consider a
rather significant part of the first year students to have a
more or less correct image of engineering, is higher
(although not substantially) than in case of Belarusian
staff (Table 3).
This can not be explained by the better work of career
guidance and information services at English schools,
since in the case of the engineering profession their
work is assessed as often inadequate (Berthoud &
Smith 1980: 62). And as one can also see there is no
difference in staff views on the quality of career
guidance registered by my surveys in Belarus and
England (Table 4).
It seems more likely that the greater adequacy in the
image of the profession inherent to English freshmen is
determined by the practical experience of industrial
work prior to entering the University, which
traditionally was and still is a wide-spread starting point
for becoming a professional engineer in Britain
(Berthoud & Smith 1980: 63). Thus, there were about
26% of respondents at Salford University who had been
employed before entering higher education in the area
Putting all of these evidence and considerations

together we can argue that English engineering students
from the very beginning of their professional education
are more aware of and oriented to the content and
values of engineering. Therefore, they appear to be
more predisposed to their further quick integration into
the profession with the subsequent acceptance of the
classic technocratic paradigm of thinking. The latter,
as we remember, is based on the exclusive domination
of narrow technical imperatives and the marginalisation
or compartmentalization of the rest of nontechnological values and interests (see, for instance,
indexs value of the first factor in Table iii, Appendix
A). Whereas all this might be the case for some students
in Belarus, their attitudes to the profession are generally
more distant and, therefore, the preconditions for classic
technocratic bias of their consciousness are not seen
quite so clearly at this stage.
Table 4
Quality of the career guidance work with the undergraduates prior to entering the
University (staff assessment)
Level of quality
Belarusian
English
Total
staff
staff
No. (%)
No. (%)
No. (%)
High
1 ( 1.7)
Higher than medium 7 (11.9)
Medium
28 (47.5)
Lower than medium 12 (20.3)
Low
11 (18.6)
59 (100)
0 (00.0)
2 (11.8)
9 (52.9)
6 (35.3)
1 (1.3)
9 (11.8)
37 (48.7)
18 (23.7)
0 (00.0)
17 (100)
11 (14.5)
76 (100)
Maintel-Haenszel Chi-square= .231 p= .631
Table 5
Undergraduates attitudes to their profession/speciality
Answers to question: Belarusian

Do you like
students
speciality involved? No. (%)
No. (%)
Yes
69 (34.5)
Neither Yes nor No 95 (47.5)
No
36 (18.5)
200 (100)
Chi-square= 15.54
English
students
No. (%)
42 (60.0)
24 (34.3)
4 ( 5.7)
111 (41.1)
119 (44.1)
40 (14.8)
70 (100)
270 (100)
Total
p= .000
The character of vocational choice is definitely among

the main factors influencing the emotional attitudes of
undergraduates towards their future profession. A
person who has consciously chosen the occupation that
is closest to his/her interests and abilities will more
likely enjoy it during professional training and after.
This can be quite vividly illustrated by the data from
my surveys (Table 5), which suggest that English
undergraduates have much better attitudes towards their
speciality than their Belarusian counterparts.
The greater satisfaction with the profession inherent to
English engineering students is obviously behind their
more confident negative position in respect of the
hypothetical possibility of re-arranging their initial
choice of speciality. Many Belarusian students, on the
contrary, would be happy to do so (Table 6).
The picture in general looks as though the quite
realistic professional expectations of English
undergraduates were not deceived in their real
encounter with EET and the profession itself and,
therefore, there is no reason to be disappointed with the
vocational choice they originally made.
The process of education and training itself is a
mighty factor shaping and reshaping students attitudes
to the future occupation as well as the main traits of
their professional mentality. The majority of
undergraduates who participated in my surveys
recognised the changing impact of EET on their image
of the profession. Although about 40% of the total
number of respondents from both countries stated the
opposite, we should take into account that quite often
the impact of the day-to-day educational environment
on the mentality of students might occur on the
subconscious level, unnoticed by themselves.
As one can see from table 7, there is a significant
divergence in the directions of evolution in the
undergraduate image of engineering. While in the
English case the number of those who improved their
image of the future occupation is twice as high as those
who became disappointed in it, the Belarusian case
looks much more balanced. Moreover, the share of the

second category among Belarusian students is 3%
bigger than of the first one.
This invites us to compare the main peculiarities of

EET in both countries. From my point of view, the key
difference here is that 5 years of engineering education
in the ex-USSR encompass a huge list of subjects which
are compulsory to study (or more precisely: to pass) in
order to fulfil formal state requirement and standards,
while the usual 3 years of a British degree course in
engineering are much more flexible in the context
which implies a limited list of obligatory subjects and a
wide range of options.
Until very recently the pattern of Soviet higher
education gave scarce possibilities of choice for the
students who had to obey the requirements of an
overcrowded and superficially diverse course that tends
to provide a lot of detailed and concrete knowledge,
rather than general principles of problem-solving and
know-how of professional self-education. The emphasis
on the latter is more characteristic of the British
academic system which has been historically known for
its liberal attitudes to the students, who are taught and
encouraged to make up their minds independently, to
choose the ends and means adequate to their abilities
in the assessments of the latter is not big enough to be

considered seriously.
Table 7
Evolution
Table 6 in the undergraduates image of the future profession under the
impact
education
and training
Stabilityofofoccupational
undergraduates
vocational
choice
Answers
to
question:
Has
your
ofyour
the
Would
youimage
repeat
Belarusian
English
intendedTotal
profession Belarusian
English
Total
choice of speciality/ students

students
changed
since enteringNo. (%)students
profession?
No. (%)students
the university?
No. (%)
No. (%)
No. (%)
No. (%)
Yes
45 (22.5)
38 (54.3)
83 (30.7)
ChangedYes
fornor
the No
better53
(26.8)
30 (20.0)
(43.5)
83
Neither
64 (32.0)
14
78 (31.1)
(28.9)
Did not change
85 (45.5)
(42.9)
25 (25.7)
(36.2)
110 (41.2)
No
91
18
109
(40.4)
Total
200
(100)
70
(100)
270
(100)
Changed for the worse60 (30.3)
14 (20.3)
74 (27.7)
Chi-square= 26.65 198 (100)
p=69.000
(100)
267 (100)
Chi-square= 7.00
p= .030
and resources.
Without going into detailed discussion of the
advantages and shortcomings of the two mentioned
traditions in EET, we must admit that in our case
engineering students from England appear to be more
satisfied with the activities linked to professional
training than their counterparts from Belarus (Table 8).
The same tendency can be observed in table 9 which
shows that English students in general tend to assess the
quality of different forms of the educational and training
process higher than Belarusian undergraduates, except
in the case of social sciences. However, the divergence
It is also quite clear that although different between

countries, the index values in general are far from
highly significant (the highest index in Table 12 is 0.4
while the highest possible is 1.0). This, to my mind,
reflects the situation in which a certain understanding of
the occupation and personal qualities necessary to
perform professional duties, which has been formed in
one way or another in the consciousness of practically
all final year students, comes into contradiction with the
existing pattern of education and training. The
undergraduates increasingly feel that they are taught in
a wrong way with an emphasis on subjects that seem
to be useless in their future activities. The following
views of English engineering undergraduates based on
their experience of industrial placements, or working
for a sponsor, look to me typical and very much like the
position of their Belarusian counterparts who are in
many ways more adherent to that kind of idea:
background up to a sort of A-level. I mean most of

the other things you can pick up in practical work.
It will teach you everything you need to know
Manufacturing should be a fairly practical degree
but I think its still too much emphasis on basic
learning stuff we do to take it for exams and then we
go to the next bit of information. And a lot of this
stuff at the end of the day youll unlikely end up
using Yes, unfortunately, to a certain extent it is
useless.
A lot of the time here [in University] I do feel
like youre becoming a professional exam
taker You go throughout the year and, then, at
the end youre just purely concentrated on
exams. All you can think about is exams and
how you gonna pass them The way Im feeling
my system at the moment is Im gonna fulfil this
degree, get the piece of paper and then go to an
organisation and actually learn to do what Im
doing in the job there Im gonna need to be
trained to be useful for that company. That will
Table 9
The undergraduates satisfaction with the quality of different forms of educational and training process
(satisfaction indexs value ranges between +1 and -1)
Indexes
Belarus
Forms of education
Haenszel
and training
Table 8
of
England
Ib
Ie
satisfaction
(Ib-Ie)
Î
1. Lectures onattitudes to activities connected with the professional

Undergraduates
special
.23
.34
.11
education
and subjects
training
2. Tutorials/labs on
Answers
to question:
Belarusian
English
special
subjects
.04
.21
.17 Total
Do3. you
enjoyonactivities
Lectures
common
education subjects
(maths, physics etc)
students
.06
Chi-square= 26.30
Chi2
3.41
NS
6.55
.011
10.58
.001
.23
10.81
.001
68 (25.5)
.19
127 (47.6)
60 (22.5)
.11
12 ( 4.5)
.35
5.82
.016
1.74
NS
22.86
.000
students
.27
connected
with the
4. Tutorials/practical
classes on
common
professional
training?
No. (%)
education subjects
-.08
.15
No. (%)
5. Lectures on social
Yes subjects
38 (19.0)
30 (44.8)
-.04
-.23
6. Seminars/tutorials
More
likely Yes than No102 (51.0) 25 (37.3)
on social sciences
More (where
likely appropriate)
No than Yes54-.12
(27.0)
6 -.23
( 9.0)
No7. Exams, tests
6 ( 3.0)
6 (.40
9.0)
.05
200 (100)
Mantel-
67 (100)
.21
No. (%)
267 (100)
p= .000
[When working in industry] I found that a lot of

work which a modern engineer requires you can
actually do if youve got a reasonable technical
be my next learning process

I think part of the problem really is that
engineering courses are generally in a lot of
ways are very outdated For example, a lot of

our courses have changed very very little. I
mean not just the individual courses but the
choice of courses that you are offered and so on
have changed very little probably in the last 5
10 years You know, I cant believe that things
havent changed enough for the best way to be
teaching now, to be different from the way it was
there (2nd and 3rd year undergraduates in
manufacturing
systems
and
electrical
engineering, University of Warwick).
Thus, the deeper penetration into the practice of the
profession leads English undergraduates to the
assimilation of the cult of experience historically
inherent in British engineering (Whalley 1986: 53-54)
and implying the superiority of a practical skill over
University theories and subjects. Not only does this
determine a certain dissatisfaction with the current
education, especially with its practical aspects (see table
9 again), but it also seems to reflect the growing
influence of technocratic reasoning which is
characterised by concentration on narrow practical
knowledge and skills necessary to pursue the master
value of technical virtuosity. It is noteworthy that
although they are not very happy with their professional
education, English students do not lose their interest in
the profession. They are sure enough that even if their
future occupation does not require a lot of theoretical
knowledge it will certainly provide them with
opportunities to use their creative abilities and
ingenuity, since the important thing there is an idea of
flexibility and being able to cope with lots of different
situations (2nd year manufacturing systems engineering
undergraduate, University of Warwick).
One might suggest that discovering practical
engineering has had a great influence on the
professional mentality of Belarusian students as well.
For many of them, who from the outset were not so
committed to the profession, an encounter with the
reality of engineering work at the average Soviet
enterprise resulted in a final occupational
disillusionment. They found out not only that high
theoretical knowledge is irrelevant for real technical
work, but also that there are very few, if any,
possibilities for most engineers to realise themselves in
a creative job.
The first thing that students in the ex-USSR usually
expected to hear from their employers after graduating
was: Forget everything you were taught in the
University (Lisovsky 1990b: 178). The main
requirement for them was to maintain and supervise a
monotonous production process which did not change
for years and was geared to pursue the fulfilment of
state plans (Soviet master value) that, as a rule, had
little to do with technical efficiency or economic
rationality. In this context the attitudes of most students
to the broader knowledge and skills as well as to the
training in general were informed by the wide-spread
consideration: Why should I do my best if it would not
be acknowledged after my graduation anywhere

(Lisovsky 1990b: 178-79). Thus alongside the other
factors, the technocratic pattern of labour use
established in Soviet society has influenced the
technocratic logic of undergraduates preparations for
their future job.
Table 10
The level of undergraduates independence in performing of educational
tasks according to their self-assessment
Scale
Belarusian
English
Total
of
levels
students
No. (%)
students
No. (%)
No. (%)
Completely independent41 (63.1) 24 (36.9)
Quite independent 62 (67.4)
30 (32.6)
Semi-independent 87 (85.3)
15 (14.7)
Non-independent
7 (87.5)
1 (12.5)
Total
197 (73.8)
70 (26.2)
Chi-square= 13.56
65 (100)
92 (100)
102 (100)
8 (100)
267 (100)
p= .004
It is possibly the case that this image of a future

professional role as a passive performer of prescribed
narrow tasks, together with the generally strict and
pressing tradition of education oriented on the one-way,
linear transmission of often outdated knowledge to
students, are responsible for their underdeveloped
creative abilities, initiativeness and independence in
their work. These deficiencies appear to be
characteristic of Belarusian students to a much greater
extent than of English undergraduates. This can be
Table 11
The undergraduates possession of different socio-professional qualities according to the assessment of teaching
staff (possession indexs value ranges between +1 and -1)
Socio-professional
Haenszel
qualities
P
Indexes
Belarus
Ib
of
England
possession
(Ib-Ie)
Ie
Î
MantelChi2
1.
Interest in the
future profession
-.15
.29
.44
12.40
.000
2.
Desire to study,
to obtain knowledge
-.24
.09
.33
7.20
.007
Autonomy and
independence in
study and work
-.25
.09
.34
9.03
.003
Initiative and
creative approach
-.40
.06
.46
19.19
.000
-.26
-.27
.01
0.66
NS
3.
4.
5.
Humanitarian
knowledge (arts,
music, literature)
traced on their own assessments (Table 10) as well as

through the judgements of their tutors (Table 11).
The general picture looks as though English
undergraduates driven by definite interest towards
existential pleasures of their profession and stimulated
by a more liberal educational atmosphere (which, by the
way, enables them to easily criticise EET) quite
confidently and independently make their way to the
occupational and educational goals stemming from their
own understanding of the role and functions of a
modern engineer. Since the latter has apparent
technocratic bias, it is not an accident that the main
attention of English students is concentrated on
acquiring narrow practical knowledge and skills that
sometimes undermines their desire to study general
theoretical subjects and certainly determines their
attitudes to humanitarian knowledge as something
incompatible with real engineering.
Belarusian undergraduates seem to drift down the
flow without any clearly articulated aims or
inclinations. Many of them are so-called ordinary or
gray students, which became a common phenomenon
in most Soviet universities and institutes during the
1990: 23-28; Lisovsky 1990b: 177-79). It is this

category of undergraduates that supplies the ranks of
mean engineers, non-creative performers and
conformists which has gradually turned into a social
group big enough to be ignored even in the prosperous
and politically correct Brezhnevs times (Yadov 1977:
63). Neither the excitement of the profession nor
interest in a broad social-humanitarian knowledge
appear to dominate their consciousness and behaviour.
Being used to formal control and guidance they are not
ready and interested to take responsibility, to make
independent decisions and judgments, to prove their
point of view. Neither have they developed personal
skills to do these. The technocratic approach of
Belarusian students, which in many respects is even
more narrow than that of English undergraduates,
stemmed from their conventional readiness to become
parts, nuts and bolts of the big bureaucratic machine
named Soviet society. They knew it would not give
them much in the sense of an interesting and
challenging job or a stimulating salary but it would not
demand much from them either, except conformity (at
least formal) with its rules and satisfactory performance
of
Table 12
Self-assessment of undergraduates preparedness for different aspects of their future career (preparedness indexs
value ranges between +1 and -1)
Indexes of preparedness MantelBelarus

England
Preparedness in the
Haenszel
area of
P
1.
professional
knowledge & skills .01
2.
social sciences
knowledge
-.26
3.
economic & finance
knowledge
-.04
4.
humanitarian
knowledge (arts, music,
literature etc.)
-.01
5.
6.
7.
8.
research
activities
management
knowledge & skills
professional
ethics
ecological
knowledge
Ib
Ie
(Ib-Ie)
Chi2
Î
.25
.24
23.76
.000
-.13
.13
3.77
.052
-.06
.02
0.15
NS
-.34
.33
21.89
.000
-.44
-.08
.36
32.47
.000
-.13
.04
.27
6.46
.011
-.02
-.04
.02
0.11
NS
.01
.01
.00
0.00
NS
1980s and are argued to be the most explicit evidence of

crisis in higher education and the general socio-political
and ideological stagnation in the USSR (Krokinskaya
prescribed limited functions.

One can see quite a clear illustration for what has
been discussed above in Table 12, which presents
undergraduates view of themselves on the threshold of

their professional career. Taking into account the often
occurring divergence between self-assessment and real
situation, we must admit that the data in question appear
to be in conformity with the staff views registered in
Table 11 and the general logic of our argument.
More independent minded and self-confident English
undergraduates obviously feel themselves better
prepared for most aspects of their future career,
although their self-assessments are far from ideal. It is
noteworthy that the latter are decreasing and becoming
almost equal to Belarusian parameters in areas of socioeconomic, moral and ecological knowledge and skills,
where students from both countries consider themselves
quite ill-prepared. But, as we saw earlier, many of them
are not really interested in being prepared better.
The only one advantage of Belarusian undergraduates
(also not confirmed by their tutors, see Table 11) is
better humanitarian knowledge, which is probably the
sole echo of all the humanitarisation programmes and
efforts within Soviet EET which were discussed in
Chapter 1. The better does not mean the best, for the
balance between preparedness or, better to say,
unpreparedness in professional and humanitarian areas
observed in self-estimations of Belarusians does not
mean that we have students with a really democratic
paradigm of thinking. I would rather argue that here we
have another type of technocratic mentality.
Unlike the classic technocrats, overwhelmed with a
desire to express themselves through their work, to
create something exclusive, technically perfect that
drives the imagination regardless of social, economic or
ecological costs of this wonder, Soviet-type
technocrats are subjected to the conformist master
value. It demands that they be like everybody, not to
do more than prescribed, not to think about the
problems beyond your limited area of competence,
because there are other specialists to deal with
economy, ecology, culture as well as the wise people
on the top to make the right decisions. They are
indifferent technocrats, their tunnel vision stems not
from an obsession with the creative essence of
engineering, but from the convenience of being blind
and cool to the other issues, which is the most rational
way (and as engineers they are quite qualified to
calculate this!) to a calm and balanced individual
existence in a totalitarian society.
It would be simplifying to argue that the classic type
of technocrat is characteristic only of Western countries,
whereas indifferent technocracy is exclusively inherent
to the Eastern, Soviet-type economies. We can certainly
find representatives of both technocratic breeds (and
there might be other sub-types of technocracy as well)
in each country. The main difference here is presumably
the proportions of their mixture.
However, the revealed diversity in technocratic types
and supposed divergence in their actual combinations
do not influence the essence of technocracy itself,
which manifests its dangerous traits regardless of
national or cultural context. The technocrats in the UK,

ex-USSR or any other country are similar in their
professional selfishness and value-free, amoral vision of
technology, in their preoccupation with their own
interests and goals and neglect of social benefits and
users needs, in their linear conventional wisdom and
lack of an interdisciplinary approach etc. And it is these
characteristics which have to become extinct with the
expansion of a democratic paradigm of thinking within
the engineering profession.
But, as we see, the different patterns and traditions of
EET in Belarus and England similarly suggest very few,
if any, real possibilities to bring up a new type of
technical worker with a more rounded, interdisciplinary approach and integrated vision of
engineering.
In this sense the situation is more or less the same in
the system of technical education established in France,
the historic home of the true engineer-technocrat
(Glover 1992: 33), in American engineering schools,
where the least bit of imagination, social concern or
cultural interest is snuffed out under a crushing load of
purely technical subjects (Florman 1976: 92), and in
many other EET institutions all over the world where
the educational philosophy is an equal mixture of selfindulgent and self-expressive bohemian individualism
and a materialism both profit-oriented and brutal
(Papanek 1984: 285).
There are quite a lot of attempts to overcome these
deficiencies in professional training and socialisation of
contemporary engineers and designers and, in many
respects, these problems are now better handled (Pacey
1983: 167-68). Yet the radical qualitative changes in
patterns and philosophy of EET are still far from being
realised. There is an apparent need in further studies and
discussion aimed to reveal with regard to different
national and cultural contexts what should be done to
achieve the global shift of paradigms in the
occupational mentality of technical workers, to ensure
the efficient professional formation of engineers able to
meet the challenges of the 21st century.
PAGE 20
Conclusion
It would be an unjustified presumption to
consider that all aspects of the technocracydemocracy dilemma inherent to the professional
formation of modern engineers in different
countries are covered in this paper. I am also not
sure whether the empirical basis of the work is
explicit enough to support its theoretical efforts
aimed to outline my main research concern.
One should bear in mind that due to the
limitations mentioned in Introduction my original
data are unable to prove anything themselves and,
therefore, can be used only as illustrations or
background for the argumentation based upon more
representative analytical sources. But even in this
case, the treatment of first hand quantitative and
qualitative materials was probably far from ideal.
My preoccupation with the central problems of the
research has originated a sort of sociological tunnel
vision, when other possible explanations of
empirical evidence may have been ignored.
Thus, gender differences between Belarusian and
English samples and, correspondingly, between
EET in the two countries were not taken into
account. While there is quite a significant
proportion of female students within Soviet higher
education (in our case it was 46.5% of respondents
in Gomel against 15.7% in Salford), according to
some large-scale studies that can be an explanation
for the low indices of undergraduates
independence and initiative in training and research
work, as well as for poor self-assessments of
professional preparedness in general (Kozlov 1990:
149-53).
Another missing explanatory factor is an analysis
of the socio-political situation in the ex-USSR at
the moment of my surveys (1990/91). Unlike
England, where radical societal transformations are
largely a matter of history (especially in the
perception of engineering undergraduates), the
hot` atmosphere of social confrontation between a
newly emerged democratic opposition and the old
communist orthodoxy (which later resulted in the
August coup) might have had an impact on
students views registered by the survey. In this
context some extreme negative judgements can be
seen not as a reflection of the real situation but
rather as manifestations of radical criticism and
nihilism which became wide spread in the whole
society, and especially among undergraduates, at
that time. There might be other hidden agencies
that influenced the views and responses of future
engineers in Belarus and England.
However, even taking them all into consideration,
one can hardly deny the main argument of the
paper, that there is an apparent technocratic bias in
the professional mentality of engineering students,

which is linked to the nature of their occupation
and patterns of professional education and
socialisation.
Having emerged in different socio-economic
conditions and being distinct in its types, the
phenomenon of technocracy becomes increasingly
incompatible with, and even dangerous to, the
progress of national economies and the whole of
human civilization in the late modern age. There
are no reasons to expect that the technocratic
paradigm of thinking will be gradually selfdissolving under the impact of a changing
environment and a logic of global development.
Being deeply rooted in the cultural and educational
institutions of industrialised societies, the
technocratic tradition tends to adjust itself to the
new conditions, to force its own logic of
development.
Thus recent studies in post-totalitarian` Belarus
show that technocratic ideas and notions are getting
increasingly popular in the mass consciousness of
the people in the course of economic reform,s
although the latter aimed to remove among others
such factors as state monopoly, over-regulation,
statutory plans etc. which had promoted Soviettype technocracy in previous years (Titarenko
1993: 32-33).
If we are seriously to break up a vicious circle`
of technocratic practice in engineering education
and activities we need to have elaborated
programmes of changing national EET systems,
combined with sufficient moral and material
resources to turn them into reality. Although the
practical ways and means of such reforms should
be different to conform with particular national and
cultural traditions, there has to be a similarity in
their philosophy, general aims and principles.
Among the most essential of them I would like to
mention the issue to which English undergraduates
in their interviews often referred as the best remedy
against almost all deficiencies of current technical
education. This is establishing broad connections
and partnership between universities and industry,
between educators and employers. Basically
industry needs to approach the educational system
and give them [i.e. educators] guide-lines what they
want` (2nd year electric engineering undergraduate,
University of Warwick). Informed by growing
competition in the global markets which demands
technical excellence, economic rationality and
ecological safety to be equally characteristic of any
product, the needs and wants of industrial firms and
organisations being directly transmitted to EET will
definitely act against narrow specialisation,
WORKING PAPER NUMBER1
PAGE 21
ignoring of interdisciplinary approach, eschewing

of marketing aspects etc.
However the complete submission of engineering
education to industrial needs might also be
dangerous. If the master value of capitalist
production profit making replaces the master
value of virtuosity in the professional mentality of
technical workers it will result in nothing more
than another version of technocracy which, like the
classic` one, has little to do with social
responsibility, cultural and aesthetic criteria or
users interests.
To prevent this threat of marketing technocracy,
to ensure real balance between different values and
motives within the formation of the professional
mentality of future engineers, one obviously needs
to retain their socialisation under the independent
influence of Universities. The latter should be the
agencies presenting the interests of society, views
of technology consumers and users; providing
interdisciplinary bridges, moral and cultural
insights; inserting the missing humanitarian
dimension in flexible practice-oriented engineering
courses etc.
As several authors have mentioned, to achieve
these ends in current EET it is necessary not just to
include some new subjects in the engineering
curriculum but to rethink the whole philosophy of
training, from improving the contents of technical
textbooks
to
introducing
non-traditional
educational forms (like work of interdisciplinary
student teams for the practical needs of a local
community) and altering the whole pattern of
relations within the system state-educationindustry` (Pacey 1983: 167-73, Papanek 1984: 34347, Volkov et al 1994).
All these obviously necessitate the involvement
and broad cooperation of different social forces and
groups whose interests and activities, however
diverse, today become more and more dependent
on the quality of scientific and engineering
expertise. However, the real unification of social
efforts and concerns aimed at the democratisation
of EET in different countries is still far from being
realised. The forces of social inertia, guild
selfishness and ambition, short-sighted pursuit of
narrow interests, which are characteristic of many
industrialists and educators, tend to perpetuate the
situation on the level of general discussions and
paying lip service to the reforms.
It remains to be seen whether these oldestablished invisible` barriers will be overcome in
the nearest future or the professional formation of a
contemporary engineer will remain halfway
between paradigms of technocracy and democracy.3
WORKING PAPER NUMBER1
References
Babosov, E.M. (1983) (Ed), Sovetsky Rabochy: Socialny i Dukhovny Oblik, Minsk: Nauka i Tekhnika.
Berthoud, R. & Smith, D.J. (1980), The Education, Training and Careers of Professional Engineers, London:
HMSO.
Cotgrove, S. & Box, S. (1970), Science, Industry and Society: Studies in Sociology of Science, London: Allen
& Unwin.
Chugunova, E.S. (1986), Sotsialno-psikhologicheskie Osobennosti Tvorcheskoi Aktivnosti Inzhenerov,
Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.
Fedorova, T.N. (1990), Nekotorye Problemy Gumanitarnoi Podgotovki Budushchego Spetsialista.` In
V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad:
Leningradsky Universitet.
Finniston, Sir, H.M. (1980), Engineering Our Future: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering
Profession. (Sir H.M. Finniston, Chairman), London: HMSO.
Florman, S.C. (1976), The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, New York: St.Martins Press.
Giddens, A. (1973), The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, London: Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Glover, I.A. (1992), Wheels within Wheels: Predicting and Accounting for Fashionable Alternatives to
Engineering.` In G.L.Lee & C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons,
London: Routledge.
Glover, I.A. & Kelly, M.P. (1987), Engineers in Britain: A Sociological Study of the Engineering Dimension,
London: Allen & Unwin.
Huby, M. & Dix, G. (1992), Merging Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Survey
Design, Analysis and Interpretation.` In A.Westlake et al. (Eds) Survey and Statistical Computing,
London: North Holland.
Kozlov, A.A. (1990), Muzhchina i Zhenshchina na Poroge Trudovoi Deyatelnosti.` In V.T.Lisovsky &
U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.
Krokinskaya, O.K. (1990), Vuz Glazami Molodykh Spetsialistov 80-kh Godov.` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke
(Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.
Krylova, N.B. (1990), Formirovanie Kultury Budushchego Spetsialista, Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.
Kryshtanovskaya, O. (1988), Vniz po Lestnitse Prestizha Socialisticheskaya Industriya, Daily, 16 June.
Kugel, S.A. & Nikandrov, O.M. (1971), Molodye Inzhenery, Moscow: Mysl.
Lane, C. (1989), Management and Labour in Europe, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Lawrence, P. (1992), Engineering and Management in West Germany: A Study in Consistency?` In G.L.Lee &
C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.
Lee, G.L. & Smith, C. (1992), Engineers and Management in Comparative Perspectives.` In G.L.Lee &
C.Smith (Eds) Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.
Lisovsky, V.T. (1990a), Sovetskoe Studenchestvo: Sociologicheskie Ocherki, Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.
Lisovsky, V.T. (1990b), Kriterii Tipologizatsii Sovremennykh Studentov.` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds),
Vypusknik 80-kh: Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.
Mara, D. (1978), The Influence of Conventional Practice on Design Capabilities.` In A.Pacey (Ed) Sanitation in
Developing Countries, Chichester & New York: John Whilley.
McCormick, K. (1988), Engineering Education in Britain and Japan: Some Reflection on the Use of The Best
Practice Models in International Comparison Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 4, November, Pp. 583 - 605.
McCormick, K. (1992), Japanese Engineers and Management Cultures.` In G.L.Lee & C.Smith (Eds)
Engineers and Management: International Comparisons, London: Routledge.
Meiksins, P. & Smith, C. (1993a), Why American Engineers arent Unionized: A Comparative Perspective`
Theory and Society, 22, Pp. 57-93.
Meiksins, P. & Smith, C. (1993b), Organizing Engineering Work: A Comparative Analysis` Work and
Occupations, Vol. 20, No. 2, May, Pp. 123-146.
Moelker, R. (1994), The Demand for Higher Education: The Changing Relations between Education and Work
as Represented in Dutch Personnel Advertisements.` Paper presented at 13th World Congress of
Sociology, Bielefeld, 18-23 July.
Pacey, A. (1983), The Culture of Technology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Papanek, V. (1984), Design for the Real World, 2nd edn., London: Thames & Hudson.
Perrucci, R (1973), Engineering: Professional Servant of Power.` In E.Freidson (Ed) Professions and Their
Prospects, Beverly Hills & London: Sage.
Phillips, D. (1992), Borrowing Educational Policy` Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol. 2 (2), Pp.
49-55.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London: Macmillam.
Rutkevich, M.N. & Rubina, L.Ya. (1988), Obschestvennye Potrebnosti, Sistema Obrazovaniya, Molodezh,
Moscow: Politizdat.
Shepetko, V.F. (1988), Formirovanie Tvorcheskoi Aktivnosti Inzhenerov: (Sotsiologichesky Aspekt), Vilnius:
Mintis.
Smirnova, E.E. (1989) (Ed), Stanovlenie Spetsialista, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.
Suleimanov, M.N. (1990) (Ed), Chelovek i Mir Professii, Sverdlovsk: Uralsky Universitet.
Thring, M.W. (1980), The Engineers Conscience, London: Northgate.
Titarenko, L.G. (1993), Technocratic Consciousness in Conditions of Economic Reform in Belarus.` In
Yu.A.Alexeichenko & G.N.Sokolova (Eds) Social and Managerial Aspects of Economic Restructuring,
Minsk: Belarusian Academy of Sciences.
Tomalin, E., Taylor, A., Almond, B. & Thomas, T. (1982), Engineering Design and Appropriate Technology`
NATTA Newsletter, No.18, July/August, Pp. 25-32.
Tushko, A.P. & Khaskelevich, S.I. (1971), Nauchnye Issledovaniya: Organizatsiya i Upravlenie, Moscow:
Nauka.
Volkov, Yu., Kapustin, M., Lobko, A. (1994), Gosvuzy-Bankroty Dolzhny Uiti: Novaya Kontseptsiya Vyshego
Obrazovaniya v Rossii` Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 31 March.
Whalley, P. (1986), The Social Production of Technical Work: The Case of British Engineers, London:
Heinemann.
Windolf, P. & Wood, S. with Hohn, H.M. & Manwaring, T. (1988), Recruitment and Selection in the Labour
Market: A Comparative Study of Britain and West Germany, Aldershot: Avebury.
Yadov, V.A. (1977) (Ed), Sotsialno-psikhologichesky Portet Inzhenera, Moscow: Mysl.
Zobov, R.A. & Sugakova, L.I. (1990), Spetsifika Formirovaniya Mirovozzreniya Studencheskoi Molodezhi v
Usloviyakh Demokratizatsii i Perestroiki,` In V.T.Lisovsky & U.Schtarke (Eds), Vypusknik 80-kh:
Sociologichesky Ocherk, Leningrad: Leningradsky Universitet.
APPENDIX A
Ranking of undergraduates' considerations about narrow professional qualities of a contemporary engineer according to the index of importance (index's value
ranges between -1 and +1).
Personal
Belarus
qualities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ib
England
RANK
Ie
RANK
(Ib - Ie)
Î
Mantel-Haenszel's
chi-squarea
High level of theoretical

knowledge
Awareness of up-to-date achievements of science & engineering
Skills in practical application
of knowledge
Research & inventional activity
Ability in rational organisation
of the own work
Skill of self-improvement in
professional 'rigging` under rapid
technological change
Ability in team work organising
and managerial skills
Spearmen's rho
.60
2.0
.54
3.5
.06
1.01
NSb
.63
3.0
.59
5.0
.04
0.42
NS
.87
.43
7.0
1.0
.76
.27
7.0
1.0
.11
.16
5.45
6.52
.019
.011
.82
6.0
.54
3.5
.28
41.71
.000
.66
4.0
.52
2.0
.14
5.10
.014
.72
5.0
.73
6.0
.01
0.11
NS
.6847
P= .045
a Here and elsewhere in the analogous tables Mantel-Haenszel's chi-square is applied as a more precise linear measure of association for ordinal data which are used
to calculate indices.
b Here and elsewhere in the other tables sign 'NS` (not significant) appears when p > .05
Table ii
Ranking of undergraduates' considerations about broad socio-professional qualities necessary for a contemporary engineer according to the index of importance
(index's value ranges between +1 and -1)
Personal
Belarus
qualities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Knowledge of arts, literature,

music etc.
Deep professional knowledge
Skills in research & inventional
activity
Knowledge of economics & finance
Basic knowledge of social
sciences
Creative abilities, unorthodox
professional thinking, initiative
High standard of morals,
conformity with professional ethics
Knowledge of foreign language
Ability in independent solving
of professional problems
Social activity
Ecological awareness and
responsibility
Spearmen's rho
England
Ib
RANK
Ie
RANK
.42
.79
7.0
11.0
-.14
.61
1.0
11.0
.30
.40
4.0
5.5
.48
.31
-.26
1.0
.53
(Ib - Ie)
Î
Mantel-Haenszel's
chi-square
.56
.18
49.08
12.45
.000
.000
7.0
5.5
.18
.09
7.43
1.70
.006
NS
-.07
2.0
.19
5.51
.019
9.0
.60
10.0
.07
1.05
NS
.51
-.17
8.0
2.0
.28
.16
4.0
3.0
.23
.33
10.72
16.17
.001
.000
.67
-.09
10.0
3.0
.53
.31
9.0
5.5
.14
.40
2.02
20.41
NS
.000
.40
5.5
.50
8.0
.10
2.03
NS
.6461
P= .016
Table iii
The impact of different factors/reasons on undergraduates' vocational choice according to the index of influence (index's value ranges between -1 and +1).
Factor or
Belarus
England
reason
INDEXb
INDEXe
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Importance of the profession

to society
Creative character of the
profession
Correspondence of the profession
to one's abilities and interests
The profession provides high
incomes
Specialisation in the secondary
school
Recommendations of the career
guidance service
Family traditions or advice of
relatives
Example and/or advice of friends
Desire to receive higher
education
Accidental circumstances
(Ib - Ie)
Î
Mantel-Haenszel's
chi-square
-.55
-.03
.52
30.66
.000
-.32
.15
.47
24.42
.000
-.15
.52
.67
41.07
.000
-.59
.00
.59
43.60
.000
-.81
-.16
.65
54.20
.000
-.85
-.59
.26
13.55
.000
-.19
-.34
-.42
-.64
.23
.30
4.36
9.29
.037
.002
.40
-.16
.35
-.66
.05
.50
.25
17.62
NS
.000
APPENDIX B
Dendrograms presenting results of hierarchical cluster analysis of variables measuring undergraduates
considerations about the broad socio-professional qualities of a contemporary engineer.
BELARUS
Dendrogram using Complete Linkage
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
C AS E
Label
Num
IMECKN
IMCRAB
IMSOKNA
IMMOST
IMCUKN
IMFLKN
IMECOR
IMSOAC
IMPRKN
IMINAB
IMRESK
4
6
5
7
1
8
11
10
2
9
3
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
0
5
10
15
20
25
+...................+...................+...................+...................+...................+
ENGLAND
Dendrogram using Complete Linkage
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
C AS E
Label
Num
IMECKN
IMSOKN
MCUKN
IMMOST
IMCRAB
IMFLKN
MECOR
MSOAC
IMRESK
MINAB
IMPRKN
4
5
1
7
6
8
11
10
3
9
2
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
0
5
10
15
20
25
+...................+...................+...................+...................+...................+
Key:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Knowledge of arts, literature, music etc.

Deep Professional knowledge
Skills in research & inventional activity
Knowledge of economics & finance
Basic knowledge of social sciences
Creative abilities, unorthodox thinking, initiative
High standard of morals, conformity with professional ethics
Knowledge of foreign language
Ability in independent solving of professional problems
Social activity
Ecological awareness and responsibility
(IMCUKN)
(IMPRKN)
(IMRESK)
(IMECKN)
(IMSOKN)
(IMCRAB)
(IMMOST)
(IMFLKN)
(IMINAB)
(IMSOAC)
(IMECOR)
i, i i, i i i - Numbers of the obtained clusters

The Professional Formation of A Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Professional Formation of A Contemporary Engineer: Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Professional Formation of a Contemporary Engineer:

Between Paradigms of Technocracy and Democracy

Analysing the nature of engineering: is the technocratic paradigm inevitable?

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

substantially to influence the future development of

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

which makes apparent the importance of the present

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

These are the main questions which my paper seeks to

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

development of my research. If this sociological study

The other main characteristics of the survey

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

The qualitative insights are provided by data obtained

- 23.3%, design of aerial and locations systems - 6.7%

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

From the outset of the profession in the modern world

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

transmissible to the students of technical disciplines

The indices in these and analogous tables in

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

to a limited number of criteria such as connections with

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

and Salford University towards the broad personal

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

result, young engineers in the former Soviet Union

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

professional requirements and feel a certain pressure to

professional training quality (28.6%) were quite far

Thereve always been equivocal relations

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

What is the most interesting, however, is that in both

Table 1 suggests that the majority of the people

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

activities, while the global transformations of the

Although the necessity for a new integrated

COMPARATIVE LABOUR STUDIES

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 1

presents a brief historical outlook of attempts

proper use of engineering labour in the national

prospects of technological change in their country or

Apart from the mentioned divergence in evolution of

connected with their degree course, while the share of

Maintel-Haenszel Chi-square= 4.37

secondary schools (A-levels). It develops interests and

Putting all of these evidence and considerations

Maintel-Haenszel Chi-square= .231 p= .631

Answers to question: Belarusian

The character of vocational choice is definitely among

looks much more balanced. Moreover, the share of the

This invites us to compare the main peculiarities of

in the assessments of the latter is not big enough to be

choice of speciality/ students

It is also quite clear that although different between

background up to a sort of A-level. I mean most of

1. Lectures onattitudes to activities connected with the professional

[When working in industry] I found that a lot of