Search

Under the influence of natural science, twentieth century philosophy departed from its Socratic heritage and increasingly isolated itself within the discipline. This new disciplinary way of doing philosophy produced a greater amount of professional knowledge and expertise, but it also separated philosophy from its broader social context. Since the mid-20th century, various efforts were made under a variety of banners to reconnect philosophical thinking with society, with field philosophy representing the most genuine break from the disciplinary paradigm. It advocates collaborative work and rejects philosophic jargon. It also shares much in common with a parallel Chinese approach called 'philosophy of gongcheng.' The philosophy of gongcheng is mostly initiated by top-level engineers, especially academicians with real political power, with the aim of enhancing the real-world engineering practices. This paper traces the roots of philosophy of jishu in China to reevaluate the appearance of philosophy of gongcheng, and exposes the differences between these two parallel transdisciplinary approaches. Working with engineers deepens the understanding of engineering practices and provides some fresh insights on previous philosophical theories. Both field philosophy and philosophy of engineering need to ask, is there only one way to do philosophy? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender differences in science and engineering (S&E) have been studied in various countries. Most of these studies find that women are underrepresented in the S&E workforce and publish less than their male peers. The factors that contribute to gender differences in experience and performance in S&E careers can vary from one country to another, yet they remain underexplored. This paper is among the first to systematically compare gender differences in the publication productivity of academic scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees in the U.S. and China. Findings from negative binomial regressions show that women publish less than their male counterparts in science but not in engineering in the U.S. In China, women do not differ from men in publication productivity in science but publish more than their male counterparts in engineering. In addition, we find that some background variables affect men's and women's publication productivity differently. The findings are analyzed in the context of the different cultures of the two fields (science vs. engineering) and of the two countries (the U.S. and China). Limitations and policy implications are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Chinese government has pointed out in relevant literature that by 2020, China is in short supply of high-level innovative technology talents, and China's engineering education will face unprecedented challenges. Based on the needs of China's future economic development, the Ministry of Education urgently launched the "Excellent Engineer Education and Training Program" in 2010, which aims to cultivate a large number of solid theoretical foundations, strong practical skills, and high innovation capabilities for the industry, the world, and the future. An outstanding engineer is the one who can quickly adapt to the needs of economic and social development. The program is divided into three levels of undergraduate, master, and doctoral training. The undergraduate level focuses on training in a series of high-quality applications capable of not only being competent in the management and marketing of the production site but also in the design, development, and operation of engineering projects. Talent: to achieve this training goal, the in-depth cooperation between schools and enterprises has become the key. In order to achieve the undergraduate-level training goals of the "Excellence Program," various local colleges and universities have adopted the method of school-enterprise cooperation, combined with their own school positioning, trying to explore a training path suitable for their own development. This research takes China's local application-oriented universities as the research object and uses the literature method to sort out and summarize the status quo of the school-enterprise cooperation in training outstanding engineers in China's local application-oriented universities. Select two different application-oriented universities located in areas with large economic development gaps, analyze their common problems, and try to put forward countermeasures and suggestions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past two decades, state policies and industrial associations have challenged engineering educators to expand the training of future engineers beyond technical competencies to the broader domain of professional skills development, with one key aspect being engineering leadership. Purpose: This study adopted the four capabilities (4‐Cap) model, which views leadership as a set of four capabilities—sensemaking, relating, visioning, and inventing—as a conceptual framework to explore and operationalize the core skills and attributes required for engineers in a Chinese industrial context. Method: A qualitative study was conducted through semistructured interviews with 23 practicing engineers from different industries (e.g., IT, automobile) and various types of companies (e.g., state‐owned companies, foreign‐invested enterprises) in China. Using a thematic analysis approach, themes relating to engineering leadership within and beyond the 4‐Cap model were reported. Results: Qualitatively, more themes emerged for the dimension of inventing than for the other dimensions. The themes and patterns suggested the central role of inventing, which predominantly represented an innovative process of design‐oriented problem‐solving and project management closely associated with themes in the other dimensions. Therefore, the 4‐Cap model was revisited and revised by highlighting the core construct of inventing. Conclusion: This study enriches the current understanding of engineering leadership, especially in a Chinese industrial context. The results emphasize the importance of design, problem‐solving, and the social component in the daily work of engineering professionals. Suggestions for educational practices and future research, along with a call for more empirical data on engineering leadership in China and from a global context, are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managers, research administrators, and policy makers need a greater understanding of the factors that drive employment preferences of foreign science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) doctoral graduates of U.S. universities. To address this need, the authors report the results of a large multischool conjoint survey of return-migration preferences among U.S. STEM doctoral students from China. The survey presents the respondents with potential job offers and yields individual-level estimates of each respondent's indirect utility of a job as a function of location, job status, and salary. The authors use a delayed follow-up choice task to demonstrate stability of the preference estimates both over time and across response modalities. The estimated preferences imply that Chinese doctoral graduates tend to remain in the United States because of a large salary disparity between the two countries rather than because of an inherent preference for locating in the United States. Given these estimated preferences, the authors conduct several policy-relevant, counterfactual simulations of return-migration choice and outline effective targeting and positioning strategy for attracting Chinese STEM talent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2004, Nanyan Cao and some other scholars have implicitly or explicitly claimed that engineering ethics in China is importantly different from engineering ethics in the United States. The evidence for that claim relies on examination of official documents or certain large features of Chinese society (for example, millennia of Taoism, Confucianism, or Buddhism). Though neither is an uncommon approach to studying engineering ethics in China, neither actually studies engineering practice in China. This article does--or at least gets much closer. The authors have asked almost two hundred (Mainland) Chinese engineers about what they do and why they do it. The responses suggest that Chinese engineers, or at least those surveyed, think about engineering ethics much as American engineers do. The responses also suggest that much more empirical work needs to be done before we can claim to understand either the similarities or differences between engineering ethics in China and engineering ethics in "the West." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes China's century-long concern with the professional ethics of engineers, especially a succession of codes of engineering ethics going back at least to 1933. This description is the result both of our own archival research and of "philosophical history," the application of concepts from the philosophy of professions to the facts historians (or we) have discovered. Engineers, historians, social scientists, and philosophers of technology, as well as students of professional ethics, should find this description interesting. It certainly provides a reason to wonder whether those who write about codes of professional ethics as if they were an Anglo-American export unlikely to put down roots elsewhere might have overlooked many early codes outside English-speaking countries. While code writers in China plainly learned from Western codes, the Chinese codes were not mere copies of their Western counterparts. Indeed, the Chinese codes sometimes differed inventively from Western codes in form (for example, being wholly positive) or content (for example, protecting local culture). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]