Benjamin Ahn

Engineering Professionals’ Expectations of Undergraduate Engineering Students

AbstractThis paper presents the results of a study that sought to identify constructs that engineers in academia and industry use to describe attributes they consider important for undergraduate engineering students to possess. We explicitly targeted the attributes of leadership, recognizing and managing change, and synthesizing engineering, business, and social perspectives. Our findings indicate ways that engineering students can engage in technical and nontechnical activities that enhance their undergraduate engineering experiences. The final goal of this ongoing effort is to develop, validate, and implement a tool that examines undergraduate students’ embodiment of the three targeted attributes.

Investigating the attributes and expectations of engineering Ph.D.s working in industry

Many engineering Ph.D.s are finding career opportunities in industry. Despite the increase in number of Ph.D. engineers working in industry, there is little research on what it takes to be a successful engineering Ph.D. in industry. This study explores the characteristics, and expectations of engineering Ph.D.s by interviewing ten engineering Ph.D.s working in industry. These preliminary findings reveal that responsibilities of engineering Ph.D.s in industry include more than research and development. Among other things, engineering Ph.D.s that work in this sector are expected to communicate effectively and teach others. The characteristics that engineering Ph.D.s need to possess to be successful in industry are also discussed.

Motivations for Pursuing an Engineering PhD and Perceptions of its Added Value: A U.S.-based Study

Engineering doctor of philosophy (PhD) holders possess expertise that is vital to addressing society’s grand challenges, but the dismal number of U.S. citizens pursuing the degree suggests many are not convinced of its value. There are few studies that have explored what motivates people in other disciplines to pursue a PhD, and not many of these were in the context of engineering. In this study, forty engineering PhD holders working in academia and industry in the U.S. described their motivations for earning an engineering PhD and the perceived added value of possessing the degree. The results of this study indicate that the motivations for pursuing an engineering PhD relate to career aspirations, prior success in graduate school, the influence of others, and intrinsic factors. Participants’ discussions about the added value of an engineering PhD manifests itself in the form of career outcomes, attributes and skills, and positive responses from others. Few participants described the “added value” of a PhD as neutral or having limitations. Both motivational and added value factors vary by employment sector. The findings of this study have implications for engaging more students in pursuing doctoral engineering studies — both in U.S. institutions and doctoral engineering programs around the world.

Recommendations for engineering doctoral education: Design of an instrument to evaluate change

In recent years, many studies and reports have highlighted concerns and problems with engineering doctoral degree recipients. Criticisms have come from professionals in both industry and academia, as well as from current and former Ph.D. students. Given the dissatisfaction of a variety of stakeholders, there have been calls from professional societies, disciplinary bodies and federal agencies to improve doctoral granting programs across the U.S. and to educate Ph.Ds. who are equipped with skills and attributes necessary to meet the highly-competitive and rapidly changing 21st century workforce [1, 2]. Within this context, this study focuses on the perspectives of working professionals from both academia and industry. Preliminary findings were obtained from one-on-one interviews with forty engineering Ph.D. holders who are from industry and/or academia. They recommended practical measures for engineering doctoral students to obtain desired characteristics upon graduation. Using the preliminary results, the work in progress precludes the design of an instrument to evaluate on-going changes to different aspects of doctoral education. The instrument will serve as a useful tool to understand the degree and scope of changes in engineering doctoral program. Portions of the instrument informed from these recommendations are provided.