Introduction
Michael Mahoney explores position of computer engineering between disciplinary and professional domains. He starts by giving a detailed history of persistent instability in computer engineering. Mahoney also utilizes historical approach to explore trajectory and origin of computer engineering.
However, he focuses his research on findings from the United States. He specifically tackles computer engineering as a domain of professional and disciplinary activity. In this regard, he tries to explore what counts as practice and knowledge in computer engineering. He also tries to define a computer engineer with respect to profession and discipline. Furthermore, he looks into timelines, locations, groups, and actors in computer engineering.
Mahoney explores sociotechnical boundaries that have continued to separate computer engineering from its adjacent fields. These fields include computer science and electrical engineering, among others. This paper will review Mahoney’s dissertation to explore position of computer engineering between discipline and profession (Mahoney, 2006).
Use of Historical Context in Computer Engineering
Mahoney looks at industrial sphere and professional societies from which computer engineering originate. He uses various academic sources ranging from primary to secondary sources with an aim of striking establishing position of computer engineering.
He includes variety of documents such as curriculum reports, conference proceedings, journal articles, and trade magazines, among others to achieve a credible outcome. He begins by describing pre-historic events on computer engineering and early historical events. Chapter two to chapter four covers years between 1940 and 1960.
Here, Mahoney finds that computer engineering gained its distinct identity as a partially distinct professional through professional societies and industries. Through this, it is observable that computer engineering was mostly professional given overwhelming support it received from professional societies and from industrial fields.
Throughout the second chapter, Mahoney accounts for emergence of computer engineering. He begins with emergence of electrical engineering to that of computer engineering. He also defines boundaries that emerged around computer engineering (Mahoney, 2006).
Similarly, Mahoney looks at historical context of computer engineering between 1960 and 1990. Here, Mahoney reveals extent of change as it occurred in the field of computer engineering. For instance, he documents that computer engineering took a distinct disciplinary identity and a partially distinctive sociotechnical settlement identity.
Apart from dominance of professional societies, academic context also emerged in this period. This showed that computer-engineering field was translating from a highly professional domain into a disciplinary domain. This period reveals debate on computer engineering’s position of persistent instability. These instabilities are discussed in depth with special attention given to domains of computer engineering (Mahoney, 2006).
Mahoney reviews extensively on recent developments associated with computer engineering in educational arena. These are aimed at highlighting continued instabilities within disciplinary domain of computing. Also, he provides basis for renewed call for establishment of a distinct professional and disciplinary identity of computer engineering as a field. In this regard, he calls for a review of historical context of software/hardware co-design movement.
He also agrees that historical development in field of computer engineering has involved both social and technical negotiation (sociotechnical context) to achieve development. Of great concern was on how to define responsibilities of a computer engineer and a computer scientist. It was quite challenging to establish a frontier between science and engineering, software and hardware and theory and design (Mahoney, 2006).
Defining such a frontier was significant in revealing important insights on past, present and future of computing. Mahoney tries to analysis these difficulties to define computer engineering. In essence, cause for concern is whether to categorize computer engineering as a branch of engineering (which makes it a professional domain) or categorize it as an independent discipline.
These conflicting questions have continually contributed to persistent instability. Besides, Mahoney considers Paul Edward’s work (The Closed World) inspirational in his analysis of professional and disciplinary development, which focuses beyond sociotechnical factors.
However, he departs from Edward’s theory when he considers that computer engineering is a significant facet of professional and disciplinary development. This diversion is caused by Edward’s belief that computer engineering is constructed from a discourse of sociotechnical elements. Mahoney claims that a profession must have capability of bringing heterogeneous elements into alignment in order to establish stability (Mahoney, 2006).
Methodology
Mahoney utilizes research papers and documents from texts and persons with close links to the field of computer engineering to conduct his research. This is important in ensuring relevancy on topic of discussion. It is also necessary in verifying credibility of sources used in developing this dissertation.
In essence, Mahoney’s goal of drawing information that emphasizes views of computer engineers is achieved. However, he avoids being monolithic by bringing views from various standpoints within the field of computer engineering. This is important in minimizing biased outcomes or lenient results.
In essence, Mahoney ensures that his dissertation is not infiltrated with biased views. That is, he integrates multiplicity of viewing platforms that have been contributed in this field over decades. However, given his objective of the unbiased outcome, Mahoney has also integrated information from adjacent areas. Nonetheless, he emphasizes on views of computer engineers on that information. This is important in bringing up credible results based on related stakeholders (Mahoney, 2006).
However, it should also be noted that Mahoney confines his research to development of computer engineering in the United States. In this sense, outcome is more related to factors in that country than in other parts of the world. In essence, his research is denied a global perspective it needs.
However, it is also necessary to note that this scope of research is increasingly easy to manage since it covers a small area of development as compared to a large scope. However, this restricts his research to be distinct to America. In alluding to this, Mahoney agrees that he would consider studying people’s perspectives on computer engineering in other parts of the world. Also, Mahoney defends his approach in research by establishing credibility of his resources (Mahoney, 2006).
Mahoney concurs that debate on sociotechnical boundaries has been in existence before. He agrees that it will continue to give rise to numerous discussions with far-reaching complications. He gives an in-depth account of transition from engineers, through computing, to computer engineering.
He gives a detailed account of historical negotiations that occurred in historical timelines of computer engineering. He also refers to various sociotechnical settlements that have so far been reached concerning computer engineering. In this regard, he includes various talks and mediation that took place in order to achieve present predicaments.
However, he still alludes to the fact that computer engineering has continued to experience persistent instability. He adds that there is amplified turbulence due to increasing calls for redefining discipline of computer engineering (Mahoney, 2006).
Mahoney also talks of overwhelming response from various scholars and agencies to bridge gap between computer science and computer engineering. In this regard, he talks of Computer Society’s move to influence computer education. It describes steps that have been taken to develop a curriculum in computer science and computer engineering.
Furthermore, it has tried to contribute to integration of computer science in engineering fields like electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and civil engineering, among others. In this regard, it has worked to support reform of curricular in electrical engineering training. Still, agencies such as ACM, among others have been forefront in ensuring hybridization of software and hardware engineering. Engineers have also taken steps to refine CSE education.
Mahoney revisits all these developments in detail with a view to striking a balance between computer engineering as a domain of profession or discipline. Consequently, Mahoney discusses relationship between software and hardware engineering in an inclusive manner.
He argues that developments observed in computer field as a whole are constantly changing direction in which computer engineering as a domain takes. In essence, emergence of fields such as informatics, computer science, and computing, among others raise debate in categorization of computer engineering (Mahoney, 2006).
Persistent instability in Computer Engineering
Mahoney also looks into divergent pathways of computing curricula and co-design. He recounts how computer engineering was embraced as (CSE) computer science and engineering as a unified intellectual discipline. This culminated in drafting of curriculum for computer engineering.
However, this report dedicated computer engineering as a domain of disciplinary and professional distinct. Also, it was noted that scope of computing had expanded so much that it could not be contained as a single discipline. This led to five new curricula in computing namely information Systems (CCIS), Information technology (CCIT), Computer Science (CCCS), Software Engineering (CCSE), and Computer Engineering.
Still, as late as in 2004, computer engineering was considered a distinct professional and disciplinary domain. Proponents of computer engineering as a discipline argued that it evolved from discipline soft computer science and electrical engineering.
Also, since computer engineering was also divided into other programs such as Computer Science and Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Systems Engineering, they supported the fact that computer engineering was an independent discipline.
They also argue that since computer engineering was drawn from computer science, it evolved from body of knowledge, which was considered a discipline (Mahoney, 2006).
However, proponents of computer engineering as a professional domain argue that computer engineers have that ability to design computer systems (hardware and software), possess breadth of knowledge in both engineering sciences and mathematics, and are prepared for professional practice in engineering. In essence, they argue that these characteristics place computer engineers as both disciplinary and professional domains.
However, Mahoney notes that recent studies have seen both computer scientists and computer engineers working side by side despite arguments concerning their domains. Mahoney believes that one reason for this is a continued blurring of boundaries between software and hardware.
Mahoney explores the historical context of software-hardware boundary debate. He realizes that both are intertwined like social and technical cultures. However, he believes that further research on boundary between hardware and software would raise thorny questions that surround engineering and science (Mahoney, 2006).
Conclusion
Mahoney reveals major concerns in computer engineering. This includes its history of persistent instability, which has transpired between 1951 and 2006. From chapter two, he explains professional domain of computer engineering. From chapter six, he explores disciplinary domain of computer engineering.
He goes on to relate this debate to studies on software and hardware. Finally, he acknowledges that boundary between engineering and science is getting close because of blurring of frontier between software and hardware. In essence, computer engineering is a distinct disciplinary and professional domain.
Reference
Mahoney, M. (2006). Between Discipline and Profession: A History of Persistent Instability in the Field of Computer Engineering, circa 1951-2006. (Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI Number: DP19901)