Fuentes-Del-Burgo, J and Navarro-Astor, E (2016) What is engineering education for? Listening to the voices of some Spanish building engineers. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(4), pp. 897-919.
Abstract
Purpose Aristotle’s concepts of “episteme”, “techne” and “phronesis” are used to understand the relevance of the education that Spanish building engineers receive to their subsequent work as construction site managers. This paper aims to clarify the role of educational factors as they influence any disparities that building engineers who are working as site managers may feel. More specifically, the objectives are to explore the satisfactions and dissatisfactions they experience in doing their job; to describe the ways they find to cope with educational deficiencies; and to gather their suggestions for improving building engineering education. Design/methodology/approach Using an interpretive approach within the qualitative paradigm, this study draws on data obtained from semi-structured interviews with a sample of 34 building engineers working as site managers in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Findings According to the site managers themselves, Spanish universities mainly teach Aristotle’s episteme (abstract knowledge and general principles) and some techne (applied, technical knowledge and skills), which fall short of the expectations placed upon them by their employers. Research limitations/implications Because of the chosen research approach, the sample size is relatively small and results may lack generalisability. Practical implications The results have practical implication for building engineering curriculum design related to the enhancement of building engineers employability and job satisfaction. Originality/value The existing literature offers insight into job-educational mismatches of different occupations in different countries, drawing on survey questionnaires. There is, however, a gap in respect of Spain and the job of the construction site manager. This paper goes some way towards filling that gap, reporting on the experiences of some higher education “customers”: Spanish building engineers working as site managers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction project management; job satisfaction; construction; spain; design education; professional development; curriculum development; Aristotle |
| Index terms: | manager, interview, occupation, drawing, construction site, survey, methodology, building engineering, design education, questionnaire, curriculum development, employability, professional development, satisfaction, phronesis, Aristotle, engineer, sample size, Spain, job satisfaction, engineering education, higher education, paradigm, site manager, construction project management, mismatch, disparity |
| Subjects: | profession, engineering problems, data collection methods, philosopher, mechanical systems, research design and methodology, practitioner, technical documentation, work location, curriculum development, project delivery, education and knowledge transfer, management, research methods, Geography, project management theory and practice, professional development, practical wisdom, educational institutions, social justice, sociology, professional education, human resources and leadership |
| Topics: | Information Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Human Resources, Ethics, Site Management, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here