REDEFINE Engineering

ENGINEERING CH∆NGE® is Back!

If you checked out the reboot trailer, you know this season is more focused, more structured, and more intentional.

This episode is a reminder of the foundational framework for ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®...  REDEFINE.

REDEFINE helps us examine the dimensions of engineering work that shape outcomes:

• RE-image who we see as engineers and what we see as engineering;
• DE-silo our approach to academic programs, research, and problem solving; 
• FINE-tune organizational conditions so people with different backgrounds and perspectives can contribute fully to outcomes that serve all of society.

Throughout this season, we’ll return to these three elements as we explore leadership, ethics, convergence, community engagement, and other aspects of our organizational systems. This episode lays the foundation and context for what's to come.

The System Check

This episode also introduces The System Check, a closing reflection you’ll hear each week.

It’s a structured pause to help you look more clearly at the system you’re operating in. This episode asks:

• How is engineering defined in your context, by language, imagery, and context?
• What conditions shape who is able to contribute meaningfully, and when?
• How often do you step back to examine whether the system you’re part of is designed to support the outcomes it claims to value?

Because change begins with how clearly we see.

If You’re Glad ENGINEERING CH∆NGE® Is Back

• Follow the show so you don’t miss the rest of the season.
• Leave a 5-star rating and short written review; it helps other agents of change find the podcast.
• Share this episode with a colleague who cares about strengthening engineering from the inside out.

Thanks for being part of this next chapter of ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®!

Visit the ENGINEERING CH∆NGE® podcast website to learn more and to request a free copy of my new brief, Engineering for Society.

Chapters

• 0:00 Intro
• 0:37 Grounding in REDEFINE
• 1:40 Don't Solve the Problem without Understanding It
• 3:33 RE-Image
• 8:43 DE-silo
• 15:19 FINE-tune
• 22:56 The System Check
• 24:47 Outro

Transcript

Speaker: 0:01

Welcome to ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®, the podcast designed to help REDEFINE engineering by RE-imaging who we see as engineers and what we see as engineering; DE-siloing our approach to academic programs, research and problem solving; and FINE-tuning organizational conditions so people with different backgrounds and perspectives can contribute fully to outcomes that serve all of society. Each episode offers actionable takeaways you can use wherever you are in the process of ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®. I'm your host, Dr. Yvette E. Pearson. Hello agents of change. Welcome to ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®. Before we move into the rest of the season, I want to take a few minutes to ground us in REDEFINE. REDEFINE is a framework I've used in my research and teaching and consulting for years more than a decade now, and it's been the foundation of ENGINEERING CH∆NGE® podcast from the very beginning. REDEFINE tells us what needs attention if we want different outcomes, not by prescribing tactics or just going through the motions, but identifying the dimensions of work that actually shape results. My mom puts it this way. You keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. Now, I know there's a version of that that's ascribed to Einstein, but I listen to my mama, hence this podcast ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®.

Speaker: 1:40

Too often we see organizations just jump straight into solutions without fully understanding the problem they're trying to solve. And one of the earliest things I remember learning as an undergraduate engineering student is don't solve the problem before you define it. A lot of times we would start defining a problem and therein embed a solution, and we were taught that's a "no-no"; there's a process involved in engineering design. And so this podcast is about applying that same level of intentionality and discipline that we expect and that we learn from our technical work to how we approach change. It's iterative, it's grounded in real constraints, and if we're doing it well, people are at the heart and soul of it all. So across this season, you'll hear me return to the three elements of the REDEFINE framework: RE-image, who we see as engineers and what we see as engineering; DE-silo our approach to academic programs, research, and problem solving; and FINE-tune organizational conditions so people with different backgrounds and perspectives can contribute fully to the outcomes that we produce in a way that serves all of society. REDEFINE. Today I want to briefly illustrate each one of these using real examples so you'll have a clear sense of how they'll show up as we move through the season. So grab a latte and listen as we dive into Episode 29 of ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®. In the REDEFINE framework, RE-image - and notice I didn't say "reimagine" - RE-image focuses on who we see as engineers and what we see as engineering because those images shape how the profession defines itself and how others relate to it. Engineering is often seen and treated as purely technical, but engineering outcomes are never that. They're never purely technical. They're shaped by people, they're shaped by our judgments and by the context. Bigger than that, they impact society. At an outreach event for middle school girls a little bit more than a decade ago, I draw a few sets of axes on the blackboard and labeled opposing ends with characteristics like good communicators, not good communicators, work well in teams, work well alone, help society, don't help society. And I asked the girls to place dots on the charts reflecting how they perceived engineers. To my dismay, but unfortunately not to my surprise, most of the dots clustered around traits like not good communicators, not team players, and not people who help society. That let me know as plain as day that engineering and engineers have an image problem. Around the same time, I did something very simple. I did a Google image search for engineering, the term engineering, and what came up were mostly actually almost entirely inanimate objects - gears, circuit boards, machinery, computers. There was nothing that connected engineering to people or to societal outcomes. So then I googled the term engineer. The images were overwhelmingly white men with a few white women sprinkled in, no people of color, no visibly disabled people, and most were wearing hard hats. Now I'm a civil engineer. I've got a few hard hats of my own, but what these images did was reinforce a very narrow image of who engineers are, what engineers look like, or what engineering looks like, and what it is that we actually do. Why does this matter? It matters because engineering is not just about technical solutions. It's about solving problems that affect people and communities. And those problems are shaped and solved by a combination of lived experience, local knowledge, and human systems, not just equations and models and gears and circuits. So when we present engineering as purely technical, we limit who sees themselves reflected in the field. And we also reinforce the idea that engineers are the only problem solvers who matter when in reality, effective engineering depends on insights that extend beyond formal engineering roles. This matters because young people across all backgrounds want to know that their work will make a difference. They want to see how their skills can improve lives in communities and systems. So when engineering is presented as technical, isolated, and disconnected from society, we limit who is drawn to the field. And when we limit who enters engineering, we limit the range of perspectives available to solve problems that affect all of society. I remember interviewing Dr. Cullen Buie when the pandemic was going on, and he put it something like this. By limiting who we provide funding to or who we engage in problem solving to a very narrow group of folks, it's like we're trying to solve societal problems with one hand tied behind our back, and that does not serve society well. So RE-image isn't about surface level representation, it's about ensuring that the people capable of contributing to society's most complex challenges can actually see engineering as a profession that makes a difference and as a place where their voices matter and their work matters, whether they are in the profession or in the communities we serve. DE-silo focuses on how knowledge is separated and ranked and constrained inside our systems and how those separations shape what counts as "legitimate" engineering work. Because when we attract people with different perspectives, that in itself is not enough. Siloed systems can prevent those perspectives from ever influencing the outcomes. You can see the need to DE-silo clearly in how many of our academic programs are structured. Think about it. Engineering students go to one part of campus for their engineering courses, another for their science and mathematics courses, another for social and behavioral sciences, and another for liberal arts. Social and behavioral sciences, for example, are not even always recognized or valued as STEM, even when engineering problems are fundamentally about human behavior and decision-making and systems. At one institution where I worked years ago, the business school was treated as the place where engineering students "ended up" if they couldn't make it in engineering. Now, that but this is how some engineering faculty viewed it rather than seeing it as a place where engineering students could gain valuable career skills. And these silos end up showing up in engineering curricula as well. Outside of math and science sequences, our courses rarely build on knowledge from earlier non-engineering courses. Structural design builds on mechanics, but not on what students may have learned about communities, policy, or human behavior in one of their core general education courses. You just don't see it. And those divisions matter because they quietly tell students what knowledge counts in engineering and what knowledge they're expected to leave at the door or that it's okay to leave at the door. These silos show up very clearly in how we teach professional skills as well. Communication is often taught strictly as technical communication. Teamwork is taught by faculty who are rewarded for their individual accomplishments. Think about that for a second. Even though accreditation outcomes require students to communicate effectively with a range of audiences, many programs define that range very narrowly - faculty, students and practitioners. So all the technical folks. Now don't get me wrong, some programs do include non-technical audiences, but then they turn around and ask the technical experts to evaluate whether that communication was effective. How do we know communication with non-technical audiences people evaluating it are not a part of those audiences? Think about it. And then there's another layer here that often goes unnamed. Communication is typically taught and assessed as one way transmissions - how clearly students convey information. Far less attention, if any at all, is paid to whether students can listen, interpret, and respond appropriately to information coming from others. But in real engineering context, listening is important. Engineers must listen to communities who describe lived experiences. They must listen to clients who share constraints that don't necessarily appear in the specifications of a project, and they must listen to colleagues who raise concerns that don't neatly fit into technical language. If we don't teach students how to listen and we don't assess their ability to listen, then we shouldn't be surprised When important knowledge never moves across boundaries. This is where the idea of convergence becomes essential. Back around 2014, the National Research Council of the National Academies published a report called Convergence, calling for or bringing attention to the need for engineering, the sciences and medicine to come together to solve complex problems in a transdisciplinary way, not the multidisciplinary way that typically ended up in silos. Now, the National Science Foundation added convergence to its top priorities. I think it was around the 2015 timeframe. And what we saw there was an expansion of not just the natural sciences and engineering and medicine, but also the need to bring in the social scientists, political sciences, and the community involvement to make sure that we're bringing together the different ways of thinking and doing and knowing that comes from all of the disciplinary and lived experiences that can help define and solve the societal problems. So DE-siloing is about whether our systems actually allow that type of integration to happen. And it needs to happen not just on paper, but in our classrooms and curricula, in our evaluation practices and in our decision-making structures. So DE-siloing asks whether our systems allow knowledge to move or quietly teach people which knowledge to ignore, which knowledge is less important. So we've got our RE-image, DE-silo, and now we will move to FINE-tune. FINE-tune focuses on organizational conditions because even when we RE-image who we see as engineers and even when we remove silos so knowledge can move, outcomes still depend on whether our systems are designed to let people contribute fully. Here's how I like to frame it. We can't effectively solve problems for, or if we're doing it well with, a heterogeneous society if we're only engaging homogeneous groups of problem solvers. Most organizations understand this at a surface level. They've treated diversity as a counting exercise - who's present, who's represented, who checks which box. But having a seat at the table is not the same as having influence. Presence alone does not change the outcomes if the system still decides whose knowledge is credible or valuable, whose input is optional, and whose contributions are quite frankly easiest to ignore or overlook. So FINE-tune asks us to look beyond that representation and examine the conditions that shape participation. Are people included early enough to shape decisions or only after key choices have been made? Are different forms of expertise treated as legitimate or are they filtered through this narrow definition of what counts as "real" knowledge? Are the rules and norms and incentives of the system aligned so people can participate with dignity, respect, fairness? This is where systems change becomes unavoidable. If the underlying conditions create barriers, barriers to access, to information, to opportunity, advancement, then the outcomes don't change, no matter how diverse the room looks. Keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. This is also a place where invisible labor enters the picture. Many systems quietly rely on work they don't formally recognize. Mentoring, translating across disciplines, managing conflict, holding teams together when conditions are strained, all of those people skills, the labor that keeps projects moving and systems functional. But because it doesn't fit neatly into traditional performance metrics, it often goes uncredited and unrewarded, especially in engineering or more broadly STEM environments. So when systems depend on invisible labor without acknowledging or supporting it, they are fragile by design. There's one more data point from my work that I'd like to mention here. I conducted a survey last year of CEOs of small engineering firms, and I asked where they felt their teams needed the most professional development. The area they identified least often was community engagement. Now, I didn't probe that response further at the time, but I've given it a lot of thought, especially given how strongly those same leaders identified needs in areas like leadership, teamwork, and communication. Now, my suspicion, and that's all it is, is a suspicion, is that many organizations equate community engagement with outreach, speaking at schools, sponsoring local projects, supporting community events. And don't get me wrong, those efforts matter. They are a step toward building relationships that can and should ultimately inform engineering work. But if community engagement is treated as something that happens around engineering rather than something that shapes it, it's easy to believe that no further development is needed. But engineering outcomes that serve society depend on trust, understanding, and sustained relationships, not just visibility, goodwill or the single touch points. And when we step back and look at the system, something else becomes clear. The very capabilities organizations say their teams struggle with most - leadership, communication, teamwork - are the same capabilities required to work effectively with communities. From a systems perspective, it's not a contradiction, it's a signal. It tells us that the conditions for meaningful engagement may not be as strong as we assume, even when intentions are good. And this is why professional ethics also matter. The American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics makes explicit that engineers have responsibilities to society and to clients, employers, the profession and one another. In other words, people. It calls on engineers to act with integrity, to treat all persons with dignity and respect, and to promote mentorship and knowledge sharing equitably with current and future engineers. And that last point matters more than we often acknowledge. Who has access to information, mentorship and formal or informal networks often determines who succeeds and who advances and who doesn't. And when systems hoard knowledge and gatekeeper opportunity or rely on informal networks, they don't just disadvantage individuals. They limit collective capacity, they reduce the quality of decisions, and they weaken our ability to produce outcomes that truly serve society. All of society. FINE-tune is not about optics, it's about designing organizational conditions so people with different backgrounds and perspectives can contribute fully and so engineering outcomes reflect the complexity of the world we live in and that we are trying to improve. Before we move on to the rest of the season, I want to pause and introduce something you'll hear at the end of every episode. I call it the System Check. This isn't about solutions or next steps, but it's about noticing about stepping back and examining the conditions shaping your work; often the ones that are hardest to see because they feel normal. The goal of the System Check is not to fix anything in the moment, but to sharpen how you see the system you are operating in. So as you reflect on this episode, consider: How is engineering defined in your context, by language and imagery and expectations? Where do boundaries exist between disciplines and roles and types of knowledge? And how visible are those boundaries to the people working within them? What conditions shape who is able to contribute meaningfully and when? And how often do you step back to examine whether the system you are part of is designed to support the outcomes it claims to value? You don't need answers to those questions yet. Just notice. Notice what comes into focus when you look at engineering not as isolated work, not as solely technical work, but as something produced through systems - sociotechnical systems. Thank you for listening. If this episode was useful, do me a favor, subscribe and leave a five star rating and review. It helps this work reach others who are navigating change. To download resources or share ideas and questions for the show, visit EngineeringChangePodcast.com. Until next time, remember, the most meaningful change comes from being as intentional about our systems as we are about our solutions. That, my friends, is ENGINEERING CH∆NGE®.