Canadian Academy Discover, Publish, Thrive
This article explores the concept of judgment in engineering and engineering education, drawing on Hannah Arendt’s non-cognitivist view. It contrasts prevailing notions of engineering judgment with Arendt’s perspective, highlighting the relevance of her ideas to the role of humanities and liberal arts in engineering education.
The question of whether judgment can be taught is a central concern in professional training in higher education, particularly in fields like engineering and management. Professional associations and accreditation bodies emphasize the importance of judgment, defining it as the application of experience to solve problems. Teaching judgment is often facilitated through methods like case studies, aimed at developing students’ ability to make informed decisions. However, cognitive biases can hinder effective judgment, making it essential for educators to raise awareness of these biases. A classic case study, “Carter Racing,” highlights how biases can affect decision-making, drawing parallels to real-world scenarios like the Challenger shuttle disaster. Despite efforts to generalize teaching on judgment, individual contexts and situations must also be considered, challenging the universality of certain teaching approaches. Hannah Arendt’s theory of judgment offers a different perspective, emphasizing the distinction between abstract thought and situated judgments. This article seeks to explore Arendt’s ideas in the context of engineering education, addressing questions about the nature of judgment, its teachability, and the role of humanities in cultivating judgment. By introducing Arendt’s work to the engineering studies community, the article aims to enrich discussions on judgment and education, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of professional judgment in engineering.
This section offers a concise overview of literature concerning the cultivation of judgment in engineering education, exploring its definition, teaching methods, and implications. Initially, it examines the concept of judgment in engineering education, highlighting its significance in problem-solving and design. Scholars like Julie Gainsburg emphasize judgment’s role in evaluating calculations, assumptions, and decisions within engineering contexts. Additionally, experts like Henry Petroski stress its importance in distinguishing significant details and preventing analytical errors.
Furthermore, judgment is portrayed as a practical skill complementing technical knowledge, crucial for ethical decision-making in engineering. The discussion extends to the challenges of teaching judgment formally, suggesting experiential learning methods like teamwork, design challenges, and case studies. While case studies are widely used, they can present dilemmas and fail to address broader societal contexts adequately. Critics caution against overlooking the broader implications of specific cases and emphasize the need for critical thinking in judgment training.
Moreover, some argue that teaching judgment requires integrating humanities education, as it fosters critical thinking and ethical considerations. Integrating liberal arts into engineering curricula can provide contextual understanding, interdisciplinary perspectives, and encourage broader critical thinking skills. However, there are concerns about reducing liberal arts to a mere tool for engineering improvement, highlighting the importance of preserving its intrinsic value and avoiding its instrumentalization.
Hannah Arendt’s exploration of judgment and education doesn’t directly intersect with engineering judgment or engineering education. However, before delving into her perspective on these concepts, it’s essential to grasp her views on the implications of science and technology. Arendt’s seminal work “The Human Condition” discusses the societal impact of technological advancements, particularly highlighted by the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957. This event symbolizes humanity’s intrusion into the celestial realm, marking a departure from traditional notions of humanity’s place within the natural order. Arendt laments the dominance of technology over human agency, noting how it supplants political imagination with mechanized processes.
Furthermore, Arendt articulates the existential consequences of scientific progress, emphasizing a growing disconnect from the essence of human existence. She underscores the pursuit of universal knowledge through scientific endeavors, leading to an inevitable realization of humanity’s insignificance in the vastness of the universe. This distancing effect, both physical and abstract, diminishes human autonomy and undermines the essence of being human.
Arendt’s examination of judgment distinguishes it from mere thought, asserting that judgment is inherently tied to the public sphere and the perspectives of others. Unlike solitary reflection, judgment requires engagement with the external world and consideration of diverse viewpoints. Reflective judgment, she argues, is essential in navigating a post-totalitarian society where established moral standards have collapsed, necessitating individual discernment in social and political matters.
However, Arendt’s stance on judgment sparks debates between cognitivists and non-cognitivists regarding the basis of political judgments and the role of reason in decision-making. While some criticize her for neglecting cognitive foundations, others commend her for elevating political judgment to an aesthetic realm characterized by shared sensibility rather than objective truths.
Regarding education, Arendt emphasizes the dual responsibility of preserving both the new generation and the existing world. She advocates for an educational conservatism that safeguards tradition while allowing for necessary societal evolution. Arendt warns against imposing ideological agendas in education, stressing the importance of nurturing independent thought and judgment.
In response to criticism, some argue that educators shouldn’t shy away from cultivating the faculty of judgment among students, especially in higher education. Arendt’s delineation between education and politics raises questions about the role of engineering education in shaping future professionals and its broader societal implications.
In essence, Arendt’s insights into judgment and education offer profound reflections on the challenges posed by technological advancement and the preservation of human values in a rapidly changing world. These ideas provoke critical inquiries into the intersection of education, technology, and ethics, particularly pertinent in fields like engineering where technical expertise intersects with societal impact.
The preceding section outlined Arendt’s views on the challenges to humanism posed by modern technoscience, her concept of judgment as non-cognitive, and her educational approach. This section aims to juxtapose Arendt’s ideas with existing literature on judgment and education, focusing on three key questions: What is engineering judgment, can it be taught, and what role do the humanities and liberal arts play?
Engineering judgment is often portrayed as a cognitive capacity tied to rational decision-making, with some discussions highlighting its role in countering cognitive biases or selecting from conflicting rationalities. Arendt’s perspective, however, diverges from this, suggesting that judgment arises when existing rationales must be set aside to address specific situations, emphasizing an ‘enlarged mentality’ that considers diverse perspectives.
While Arendt’s work on judgment is underexplored in engineering literature, it offers valuable insights into professional judgment, challenging the notion of purely rational decision-making within corporate environments. Despite difficulties, there’s space for exercising Arendtian judgment even within large corporations, though rarely officially acknowledged.
The ability to teach engineering judgment, as seen through Arendt’s lens, lies not in imparting a set of rules but in preparing students for the complexities of professional life. It involves recognizing situations that defy pre-existing frameworks and encouraging the exercise of judgment, even when it contradicts accepted norms.
Case study pedagogy, while valuable, sometimes fails to capture these nuanced moments, emphasizing predetermined conclusions over genuine exploration. Embracing Arendt’s philosophy requires a shift towards fostering open-ended assessments and resisting the urge to simplify complex scenarios.
Arendt’s concept of ‘dark times’ applies to engineering education, highlighting the dangers of thoughtlessness and oversimplification in technological discourse. Engineers trained to think critically and independently can challenge these conventions and contribute to more thoughtful technological development.
Incorporating the humanities and liberal arts into engineering education isn’t about adopting predefined perspectives but cultivating a mindset that resists simplistic explanations. This approach aligns with Arendt’s concern for retaining a human understanding of the world amid technological advancement.
Despite potential criticisms of instrumentalizing the liberal arts, Arendt’s emphasis on active engagement and responsibility in education suggests that integrating these disciplines serves a broader purpose of caring for the common world and fostering critical thinking among future engineers.
This article introduces Hannah Arendt’s work to discuss the concept of engineering judgment, its teaching, and the role of humanities and liberal arts. It warns against overstating case studies like ‘Carter Racing’ as general problems, which could be rationalized through existing cognitive schemas, advocating instead for an “enlarged mentality” approach. It also explores broader issues such as the tension between professionalism and Arendt’s notion of judgment, engineers’ role in complex societal contexts, and the need for engineers with humanist sensibilities. These discussions highlight a need for engineers to go beyond mere technical proficiency and engage in societal dialogue and narrative shaping, challenging traditional engineering paradigms.
Source:
(2024) Engineering Judgment and Education: An Arendtian Account, Engineering Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2024.2333239