Tensions Between Industry and Academia: Policy Making and Curriculum Development

  • R. Alan ChevilleEmail author
  • John Heywood
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 32)


Elsewhere we have discussed the tensions inherent to being an engineer, and argued they are both necessary and constructive. These tensions necessarily impact on the role of the teacher and the role of the students in learning, and therefore, the curriculum. Curriculum mediates between the needs and values of higher education and those of the larger social system including businesses in a capitalist society, which partially funds it and for which it is claimed to serve. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the implications of this view. It is shown with reference to current debates in the US engineering education community that understanding and embracing these tensions has radical implications for the design and understanding of the curriculum.


Systems thinking Tension Engineering education 


  1. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2013). 2013 report card for America’s infrastructure. Retrieved June, 2016, from
  2. Argote, L., & Ophir, A. R. (2002). Intraorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (n.d.). Nichomachean ethics, book VI, ch. 4 (1140A1-23) (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aubert, V. (1963). Competition and dissensus: Two types of conflict and of conflict resolution. Conflict Resolution, 7(1), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartha, P. (2013). Analogy and analogical reasoning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from
  6. Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual: The step-by-step guide for building a great company. Pescadero: K & S Ranch.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1987). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buber, M. (2010). I and Thou. Eastford: Martino.Google Scholar
  9. Bucciarelli, L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, T. (1966). On the plurality of social systems. In J. R. Lawrence (Ed.), Operational research and the social sciences. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  11. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM. Washington, DC: Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  12. Cech, E. A. (2013). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science Technology Human Values, 39(1), 34–63.Google Scholar
  13. Chambliss, D. F., & Takacs, C. G. (2014). How college works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheville, R. A. (2014). Defining engineering education. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  15. Cheville, R. A. (2016). Linking capabilities to functionings: Adapting narrative forms from role-playing games to education. Higher Education, 71, 805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheville, R. A., & Heywood, J. (2015). Drafting a code of ethics for engineering education. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education El Paso.Google Scholar
  17. Cheville, R. A., & Heywood, J. (2016). From problem solvers to problem seekers: The necessary role of tension in engineering education. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Meeting, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  18. Clough, G. W., et al. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Connolly, M., & Seymour, E. (2012). Why theories of change matter (Examples from EHR programs). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Coyle, E. J., & Jamieson, L. H. (2000). Projects that matter: Concepts and models for service-learning in engineering. In E. Tsang (Ed.), EPICS: Service learning by design – Engineering projects in community service (pp. 59–74). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, M. (1998). Thinking like an engineer: Studies in the ethics of a profession. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dias, P. (2013). The engineer’s identity crisis: Homo Faber or Homo Sapiens? In D. P. Michelfelder, N. McCarthy, & D. E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Reflections on practice, principles and process. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Dodd, D., & Favaro, K. (2006). Managing the right tension. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 62–74.Google Scholar
  25. Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  26. Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25). What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. New York Times Magazine, 20.Google Scholar
  27. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design of and evaluation of school programs. London: Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Elsbach, K. D. (2002). Intra organizational institutions. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Flaherty, C. (2015 June 26). Watered-down Gen Ed for engineers? Inside Higher Ed.Google Scholar
  30. Foroohar, R. (2016). Makers and takers: The rise of finance and the fall of American business. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  32. Froyd, J. E., & Lohmann, J. R. (2013). Chronological and ontological development of engineering education as a field of scientific inquiry. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100, 1344–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fumasoli, T., Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. A. M. (2014). University autonomy and organizational change dynamics. Oslo: ARENA.Google Scholar
  35. Giddens, A. (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goldman, S. L. (2004). Why we need a philosophy of engineering: A work in progress. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grinter Report. (1994). Report on evaluation of engineering education (reprint of the 1955 report). Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  38. Hale, T., & Viña, G. (2016). University challenge: The race for money, students and status. Financial Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  39. Hesseling, P. (1966). Strategy of evaluation research. Van Gorcum: Assen.Google Scholar
  40. Heywood, J. (2000). Assessment in higher education: Student learning, teaching, programmes and institutions. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Heywood, J. (2014a). Designing a stage of “romance” for programs in technological literacy. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  42. Heywood, J. (2014b). Who am I? Who are you? Where are we going? Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education, Madrid.Google Scholar
  43. Holton, E. F. (Ed.). (1998). Preparing students for life beyond the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  44. James, W. (1912). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Longman, Greens, and Co..Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1993). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic procedures for educating adults: A comparative analysis. Duluth: University of Minnesota: Cooperative Learning Center.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. Change, 32(1), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jones, E. A. (2002). Transforming the curriculum: Preparing students for a changing world. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.Google Scholar
  48. Kallenberg, B. J. (2013). By design: Ethics, theology, and the practice of engineering. Eugene: Cascade Books.Google Scholar
  49. Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.Google Scholar
  50. Koen, B. V. (2010). Quo Vadis humans? Engineering the survival of the human species. In I. van de Poel & D. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. MacMurray, J. (1961). Persons in relation. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  52. Mann, C. R. (1918). A study of engineering education. Boston: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  53. Margolis, E. (2001). The hidden curriculum in higher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  55. McKinney, K., & Heyl, B. S. (2009). Sociology through active learning: Student exercises. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meadows, D. H. (2002). Dancing with systems. The Systems Thinker, 13(2), 2–6.Google Scholar
  57. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Mentkowski, M. (1999). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  59. Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Newman, J. H. (1852). The idea of a university defined and illustrated: In nine discourses delivered to the catholics of Dublin. Project Gutenberg.Google Scholar
  62. Pawley, A. L. (2009). Universalized narratives: Patterns in how faculty members define “Engineering”. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Percy, L. E. (1945). Report of the special committee on higher technological education. London: H. M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  64. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  65. Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  66. Powell Jr., L. F. (1971). Confidential memorandum: Attach on American free enterprise system: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
  67. Power, B. (2014, April 23). How GE applies lean startup practices. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  68. Reich, R. B. (2016). Saving capitalism for the many, not the few. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  69. Rogers, K. J. (2015, September 1). A work in progress. Inside Higher Ed.Google Scholar
  70. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  71. Sathianathan, D., Sheppard, S., Jenison, R., Bilgutay, N., Demel, J., Gavankar, P., Lockledge, J., Mutherasan, R., Philips, H., Poli, C., Richardson, J. (1998). Freshman design projects: Lessons learned in engineering coalitions. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
  72. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  73. Schiro, M. S. (2012). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Seely, B. E. (1999). The other re-engineering of engineering education, 1900–1965. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sen, A., Muellbauer, J., & Hawthorn, G. (1987). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  77. Silverthorne, S. (2011). The most important management trends of the (still young) twenty-first century. Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School. Accessed at:
  78. Slaton, A., & Riley, D. M. (2015, July 8). The wrong solution for STEM education. Inside Higher Ed.Google Scholar
  79. Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  80. Taylor, P., Parker, K., Fry, R., Cohn, D., Wang, W., Velasco, G., & Dockterman, D. (2011). Is college worth it? College presidents, public assess value, quality and mission of higher education. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  81. Trevelyan, J. (2014). The making of an expert engineer. London: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Turner, A. (2015). Between debt and the devil: Money, credit, and fixing global finance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vinck, D. (Ed.). (2003). Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  85. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
  86. Whitehead, A. N. (1932). The aims of education and other essays. London: Benn.Google Scholar
  87. Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  88. Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning: How to gain the most from PBL (3rd ed.). Hamilton: Waterdown.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ECE DepartmentBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA
  2. 2.Trinity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations