New Zealand Engineering 1997 October

Editorial

Peter King, editor

Consciousness

Consciousness is the child of communication. If so, does the Institution have a consciousness? Is there sufficient communication among members to claim such a thing?

Sadly I would have to conclude probably not. There is a "collective unconsciousness" certainly - that implicit awareness of professional and social concerns which is achieved from similar experience in similar times - but this is not the same as that explicit communication, debate and reflection which the word "consciousness" implies.

Consider land mines. As a profession, doctors "own" such problems as HIV/Aids and antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria even though individual practitioners may have little to do with them. As a profession, engineers are looked to as "owning" land mines even though individually they may have nothing to do with them. Certainly it would be wonderful if the profession could, as a body, swing in behind University of Auckland School of Engineering senior lecturer Lawrence Carter's microwave "heat and seek" approach to detecting plastic land mines. While some may want to argue for other techniques, at least Mr Carter's research proposal is a tangible contribution and the longer it languishes without support in this country the more embarrassing that lack of support becomes. On the other hand, for a profession to "swing in behind" something it requires consciousness and that requires communication.

When the Institution was founded back in 1912 its primary purpose was to provide a vehicle for engineers to exchange ideas about engineering in this difficult new land. Central to this was the development of the annual conference. Times have changed and engineering is now more diverse than could have been imagined in 1912, and expectations are changing too. A recent survey by Ipenz chief executive Warwick Bishop, of 300 randomly selected members generated 88 responses (many of whom had not been to an Ipenz conference), has found general support for the Ipenz conference as a forum for presenting the profession to the public and media, networking and as a premier event of the Institution. Departures from the past, however, included support for holding the conference only in main centres and including interesting non-engineer business speakers. Further work needs to be done but a desire for some change is clear.

But such a three day event does not signify consciousness. If anything that should precede a conference. The Institition has put in place an internet facility for communication which provides for real time and bulletin board discussion. Problem is it's not being used - it's just being looked at like a TV set. Despite over 2,900 visits to the web site since early June only six engineers have made any comment on the web forum. Our listserver is largely unused. Why this reluctance to communicate? Does the engineering profession need to develop its consciousness? I'd say it does.