2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

The earliest comprehensive report on engineering education in America was A Study of Engineering Education: Prepared for the Joint Committee on Engineering Education of the National Engineering Societies (1918). It is usually referred to as The Mann Report not only because that title is much more manageable but also because it was authored by a single person, Charles Riborg Mann. Like many individuals whose expertise crosses multiple disciplinary boundaries, Mann is not easy to describe in a few words, much less a single word like “physicist” or “applied scientist.” In addition to his report on engineering education, he published a widely used physics textbook, a Manual of Advanced Optics, The Teaching of Physics for Purposes of General Education, and several books on education, including The American Spirit in Education, Education in the Army, 1919-1925, and Living and Learning. Mann rooted his analysis of engineering education in its history, focusing largely on the dynamics that shaped the system. He identified two methods of administration in civilian (vs. military) engineering schools: “the autonomous department type,” which generated what he called “centrifugal forces,” and “the well-designed cooperative type,” which generated “centripetal forces” that coordinated the various elements so that they function as a system. Many of his observations and criticisms could well have been written over 100 years later. Fortunately, the innovative approaches he recognizes and recommends are still relevant (if not widely followed) today. His integrative approach to humanistic studies for engineers, an approach that was grounded in what we today might call the philosophy of engineering, recognizes the cultural and structural forces that have shaped engineering education generally and humanistic education for engineers in particular. This paper will argue that his approach provides the foundation for synthesizing the knowledge and pedagogical strategies that have emerged in the extensive but fragmented scholarly discourse on the non-technical dimensions of engineering practice and education.