Clash of Engineering Scientists and Environmental Engineers

Abstract

In recent editorials in the Journal of Environmental Engineering (JEE), practitioners have questioned the relevance of JEE to the practice of environmental engineering ~Srivastava 2001; Sonnen 2001; Parker 2002!. While acknowledging that the content of JEE is not above reproach, Pavlostathis and Arnold ~2001! note that many practitioners are still participating in JEE, representing 29% of authors and coauthoring 47% of published articles in a recent year of JEE. I suggest that the dissatisfaction with JEE voiced by a sector of the community of practicing environmental engineers is just one symptom of a larger more pervasive problem with ramifications far more significant than the future role of this Journal. While the percentage of work published by practitioners in JEE is not insignificant, the Journal, like many other widely cited journals, is dominated by authors from institutions of higher education. JEE’s content merely reflects the schism between academia and practice. Regardless of changes in the management and operation of JEE, one journal cannot serve these two communities, which have differing perspectives, equally well. If one looks closely at the forces influencing today’s educators of engineers, one can see how the gap between academia and practice has developed. Efforts to close this gap will not only improve the relevance of JEE articles to the practicing community, but more importantly will also help to train engineers better prepared to address complex, interdisciplinary environmental challenges. Since World War II, leading engineering programs have evolved from practice-oriented training facilities to researchintensive institutions. While there clearly is a need for engineering research, engineering higher education has adopted the evaluation and reward structure of academic science programs. Faculty performance is evaluated in the areas of teaching, research, and service to the profession. Nowhere in this science paradigm of higher education is practice seriously considered. In fact, how much an institution values ‘‘practice’’ in the evaluation of faculty performance seems to be inversely related to the reputation of the institution. Top programs hope to hire faculty with P.E.s in hand, and then actively discourage the faculty members from continuing to practice. As president of the National Academy of Engineering, Wulf ~1998! referred to the current generation of faculty members that has developed under the science paradigm as ‘‘engineering scientists.’’ Working within the evaluation and reward structure that has been laid out for them, can we be surprised that these bright, dedicated engineering scientists have not made keeping close ties to practice a high priority? The fundamental problem with applying the science paradigm to engineering programs is that engineering is by definition a practice, problem-solving profession. Engineering students, both undergraduates and graduates, need exposure to insights gained in