Engineering mixes with politics

Singh, A (2012) Engineering mixes with politics. Construction Innovation, 12(2), pp. 128-132. ISSN 1471-4175

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to emphasize that engineering and construction are much more than possessing technical skills and that political leadership necessitates engineering, manufacturing, and construction skills. The paper argues that the built environment and process of public investment decision making are proof enough that engineering must mix with politics. It is found that engineering and construction education need to orient themselves to the humanities and social sciences, public policy, management science, and law. The reality of leading effective governments requires that ministers, and prime ministers in particular, have a vast amount of general knowledge that encompasses engineering, manufacturing, finance, and construction. The benefit to nations of having welleducated, wellrounded leaders at the helm can only be imagined as having a high social value. Whereas others have espoused the need for leadership training, this paper adds value to the social discussion and brings out the dimension of politics being intricately connected with engineering and construction.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction; education; engineering; leadership; politics; skills
Index terms: technical skill, management science, construction education, public policy, investment decision-making, politics, built environment, social value, social science, dimension
Subjects: professional development, theoretical framing, management, political science, infrastructure and transport systems, cognitive psychology, professional education, sociology, health monitoring assessment and metrics, public policy
Topics: Governance, Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Education, Urban Studies
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

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