Abstract
In this chapter we report on and discuss our empirical classification of innovative engineering projects. Basic innovative engineering projects are characterized by their overall goal and accompanying method. On the basis of this goal and method, we classify engineering projects as all falling in one of the following categories: (1) Descriptive knowledge as prevalent in the descriptive sciences; (2) Design of artefacts and processes; (3) Engineering Means-end knowledge; (4) Modeling (simulation serious gaming included); (5) Engineering optimization; and (6) Engineering mathematics. These categories are illustrated with examples drawn from our educational experiences. Formally our classification system is a partition: the categories are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Regarding its empirical power, we claim intra-departmental completeness for the projects that we have studied at the Departments of Mechanics and Applied Physics of Delft University of Technology; we hypothesize intra-academic completeness within Universities of Technology; and we hope for and encourage investigating extra-academic completeness regarding engineering in industry. Besides having significant consequences for the methodology of the engineering sciences, our categorization provides a new way to study empirically the relation between science and technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Our choice for starting with academic projects has the following advantage regarding extrapolation: if the extra-academic engineering practices fit our classification well, we have a convincing validation; if they do not fit our classification we have shown that our engineering education system is minimally incomplete.
- 2.
Of course we are well aware that these types of methods are again reconstructions and not actual patterns in daily practices.
- 3.
See ISO (2006) section 5, or the ABET (1988) definition of design, which states: ‘Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation.’
- 4.
The X in (*)’s consequence may be interpreted to be a sufficient, a necessary, or a rational means to achieve A. The consequence may also have different forms, such as doing X is effective, which would give (*) a more descriptive ring. We will leave these more philosophical subjects for another occasion.
- 5.
Implemented software on a computer may be considered to be an artifact, and as such being part of a (software) design cycle.
- 6.
In fact we did encounter these projects within the Delft Applied Physics department, which illustrates the differences of emphasis between the departments in a university of technology.
- 7.
This example stems from the Nereda® wastewater treatment project, which is a clear illustration of a multiple-purposed project. For a description of this project see Zwart and Kroes (2015).
- 8.
To push the artifact-argument further we could maintain that all the goals of our classification are artifacts in some sense. Accepting this counterargument would therefore block any categorization of the main engineering problem solving activities. Consequently, the counterargument may be easily parried within the context of the willingness to set up such classification.
- 9.
Some isolated initiatives, however, can be found, for instance, in de Vries et al. (2013).
References
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing engineers (1st ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley.
de Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 657–662.
de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton.
de Vries, M. J. (2005). 80 years of research at the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium 1914–1994. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications (Amsterdam University Press).
de Vries, M. J. (2010). Engineering science as a “Discipline of the Particular”? Types of generalization in engineering sciences. In I. Poel & D. E. van de Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: An emerging agenda (pp. 83–94). Dordrecht: Springer.
de Vries, M. J., Hansson, S. O., & Meijers, A. (Eds.). (2013). Norms in technology. Dordrecht: Springer.
DUT Racing. (2015). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DUT_Racing&oldid=674734805
Hevner, A. (2007). The three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92.
Houkes, W. (2009). The nature of technological knowledge. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 309–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hubka, V., & Eder, W. E. (1996). Design science: Introduction to needs, scope and organization of Engineering design knowledge. Berlin: Springer.
Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the Engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krick, E. V. (1969). An introduction to engineering and engineering design (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2000). The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology. Amsterdam/New York: JAI.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Layton, E. T. L., Jr. (1974). Technology as knowledge. Technology and Culture, 15, 31–41.
Meijers, A. (Ed.). (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Amsterdam/London/Boston: North Holland.
Niiniluoto, I. (1993). The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis, 38(1), 1–21.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Berlin: Springer.
Parkinson, A. R., Balling, R., & Hedengren, J. D. (2013). Optimization methods for Engineering design. Provo: Brigham Young University.
Pólya, G. (2014). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: fundamentals and methods.Chichester/New York: Wiley.
Sheppard, S., Colby, A., Macatangay, K., & Sullivan, W. (2007). What is engineering practice? International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 429.
Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., & Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science. London: Routledge.
Tong, W. (2014). Mechanical design of electric motors. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Vincenti, W. (1990). What Engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Von Wright, G. H. (1963a). Practical inference. The Philosophical Review, 72(2), 159–179.
Von Wright, G. H. (1963b). Norm and action: A logical enquiry (1st ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul PLC.
Wilson, E. B. (1952). An introduction to scientific research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zill, D., Wright, W. S., & Cullen, M. R. (2011). Advanced Engineering mathematics. London: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Zwart, S. D., & Kroes, P. (2015). Substantive and procedural contexts of engineering design. In S. H. Christensen, C. Didier, A. Jamison, M. Meganck, C. Mitcham, & B. Newberry (Eds.), Engineering identities, epistemologies and values (pp. 381–400). Dordrecht: Springer.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the editors of this volume for their efforts to improve the readability of the text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zwart, S.D., de Vries, M.J. (2016). Methodological Classification of Innovative Engineering Projects. In: Franssen, M., Vermaas, P., Kroes, P., Meijers, A. (eds) Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33716-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33717-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)