Introduction

Our social analysis highlights the three main contexts driving this project. The main focus surrounding the contexts are the need to take an interdisciplinary approach to transform engineering culture and education. We break the social context down into the cultural, educational and psychological contexts, each expanding on the underlying social elements defining our problem.

Educational Context

When someone says “engineering”, the first thing that comes to mind is often a focus on functionality, with form and effects as byproducts of the simplest and easiest technical solution to a problem. This somewhat negative view persists not because it is the inherent nature of engineering, but how engineering is taught in colleges and universities across the nation. Engineering education in recent history has maintained the wide berth of disconnect with other disciplines. This is largely due to the strictly technical focus of traditional accredited programs. Within these strictly regulated programs, it has been found that “creativity is not appropriately taught or rewarded” (Atwood, 2016). One study found that of engineering students with self described highly creative dispositions, only half would graduate in the engineering discipline (Atwood, 2016). Creative students are being discouraged from pursuing an engineering degree because their creative inclinations are not acknowledged or developed. Perpetuating the stereotypes, emphasis is placed on solving problems solely through the most efficient object, with no room for creativity. This focus on engineering and technology as a highly technical and functional object, stems from the anti-humanist view of technology, and technological determinism. Anti-humanism is a school of thought that places technology as a physical object and ignores the circumstances surrounding the product which shape its use (Matthewman, 2011). Anti-humanism regards technology in terms of technological determinism, which is the idea that technology has the ability to shape social and cultural constructs. This viewpoint has been reflected in engineering education. Thinking in terms of technological determinism, the contexts in which engineering technologies are placed are ignored, because the assumption is that these technologies are ingrained with inevitable and predetermined influences. In other words the object’s effects are fixed within its technology, and there is no way to design it to have a certain desired outcome. With this mindset ingrained, engineers have been taught to design the technology, and let it run its “natural” course within society. The worry is that continuation of this type of mindset will create engineering students that are “not fully comfortable thinking creatively and considering their designs for real world contexts” (Constantino, 2010, p.50). There has been much controversy surrounding the curriculum and ABET accreditation, and whether or not these programs will continue to “foster improvement and innovation” (Deans and ABET Review Accreditation Criteria, 1990, p. 3). Engineering education has prepared its students to create things, but it has not taught them how to consider how their designs will fit into the larger contexts that shape the socio technical systems they are ultimately placed within. Continuing to educate in this way will only produce engineers that are ill equipped to produce creative solutions, and will not be able to keep up in a world that is rapidly changing (Constantino, 2010, p.50).

It isn’t just that engineering has tunnel vision for the final technical product, but it places itself on a tier above other disciplines. There is an “expert versus novice” mentality, that engineers are the experts with highly coveted technical skills, and other skillsets are somehow less than or inferior to their technical know how. Technical skills are of course, essential in the engineering profession. However, there is a need to broaden the knowledge of the typical engineer, such as Incorporating creativity to engineering curricula. This will ultimately attract more creative engineers, and move engineering in a positive and productive direction, stimulating innovation (Atwood, 2016). With the incorporation of creativity into design, engineers “are able to innovate in ways that improve our quality of life and the state of the world” (Daly, Mosyjowski, Seifert, 2014). An artwork in the Acopian stairway will help to demonstrate this positivity, and the importance of finding solutions outside of a technical context. In the piece, engineering is a supplement to provide a more conceptual functionality to an artwork. Merging art and engineering allows for greater creativity and innovation, rather than simply completing a task. Opening engineering to other disciplines such as art will help in “fundamentally changing education to incorporate the experimentation and exploration that is at the heart of effective education” (Lahey, 2014). Artwork in an engineering building will exhibit the interdisciplinary development of the engineering department, pushing Lafayette’s curriculum to a better future of engineering education. It will also show students the possibilities for application of their technical skills. Beyond the calculations and measurements, there is opportunity to incorporate these skills into other areas of academia.

Psychological Context

The psychological context surrounding engineering largely has to do with the perception of engineering and the emotions of the students within engineering. In terms of perception, there are two relevant subsets within the Lafayette community. There is the perception of those within engineering and those outside of engineering. We are also interested in the emotions of engineering insiders and how those emotions affect learning outcomes. Specifically, our project aims to improve both the general perception of engineering and the learning outcomes of engineers through the use of art.

Engineering has a perception issue both from outside and within. From an outsider’s perspective, engineering seems not only boring, but almost hostile. The subject matter combined with learning environment makes outsiders perceive engineering as a foreign concept, which stands alone in its own academic realm. This negative outward perception is reflected by the proportion of students in higher education that enroll in and graduate from engineering programs. Around 10% of first-year college students in the United States plan to major in engineering, and only 5% of college majors finish an engineering bachelor’s degree (National Science Board, 2014, p. 116). Clearly, engineering as a whole needs to shift not only its perception, but its retention.

On a school specific level, Acopian and its physical atmosphere has a negative impact on Lafayette engineering student learning outcomes. It has been shown that negative emotions are positively correlated with poor learning outcomes (Pekrun, Goetz, & Titz, 2002, p. 102). This is important because Acopian, as a building, is a sterile, functional construction that only serves as a space for engineering education. Because Acopian is harshly lit and lacking of any kind of aesthetic consideration, its apparent that the physical environment has a negative impact on the emotional state of Lafayette engineering students (Kuller, Ballal, Laike, Mikellides & Tonello, 2007, p. 10). These negative emotions can lead to decreased performance within the classroom (Pekrun, Goetz, & Titz, 2002, p. 102).  This is not to say that Acopian’s physical design is causing students to fail their courses, but as a space it is doing little if anything to improve the learning environment.

Our project aims to correct the psychological woes of the Acopian engineering center by challenging the general perception of engineering and improving the environment where engineering education takes place. This combination of outcomes will simultaneously intellectually stimulate and comfort Acopian’s inhabitants. The result of this effect will be an overall more welcoming environment that fosters a sense of interdisciplinary culture.

In this proposal we attempt to address the issue of negative perception by integrating art and engineering. By showcasing an integration of art and engineering we intend to communicate the fact that engineering is not something that exists by itself. The art display intends to show that engineering, when integrated with other disciplines, enhances both itself and the discipline its being integrated with. In this case, the art on the Acopian stairwell will show the community that the possibilities of engineering are limitless. It will also challenge what they perceive as being engineering. Our art display, at first glance, may not seem like engineering. However, if the viewer analyses the design, they will realize that engineering plays an integral role in the artwork. This realization is what will change the psychology of the Lafayette community. Realizing the interdisciplinary potential of engineering could have a profound impact on those who view our art display.

In addition, our art display aims to improve Acopian by making the building psychologically more comfortable. The aesthetically unpleasant building lacks any amount of diverse color and comfortable lighting. By improving the levels of natural light flooding the building our project could improve the mood of those working in Acopian. Also, by introducing different shades of light our project aims to create a more comfortable atmosphere within Acopian (Kuller et al., 2007, p. 10). Furthering this narrative, enhancing the color palette of the building’s light will create a more friendly, welcoming environment. In general, by improving both the lighting and aesthetic of Acopian our project will improve the emotional status of engineering students, thus improving learning outcomes of students.

Cultural Context

Lafayette markets itself as a strong community with an accepting and open culture for anyone. Yet there is a sense that Acopian is only for engineers and that engineers are the best and brightest on this campus. However, we are hoping to shift the cultural identity of engineering by showcasing its true interdisciplinary nature by combining art and engineering. The cultural context of this proposal will discuss challenging perception to enable change, including Easton, recognizing engineering as interdisciplinary, the importance of public art on college campuses, and student interaction.

Studies have shown the value of public art on college campuses for student life as well as for the campus’ aesthetic. In The Administration of Public Art on State University Campuses, Lawrence Mankin states that, “Public art can serve multiple purposes for a university campus, including (a) embodying and reflecting the intellectual and creative mission of the institution, (b) enhancing the aesthetics of a campus, (c) fostering campus community spirit, and (d) memorializing individuals or events significant to the institution’s history.” (Mankin, 2002, p. 57). Our design will encompass all of these purposes and showcase the value of public art for a community. Our project will exemplify the benefits of receiving an engineering degree from a liberal arts college; that engineering and liberal arts are deeply intertwined. Engineering Studies is a distinct major offered by Lafayette College and our project would memorialize its importance for the college and its students. This project hopes to show students that they can receive a technical education that also fosters creativity and inclusion, part of Lafayette’s mission. The addition will also enhance the interior and exterior of Acopian, which will benefit the overall campus aesthetic. Lafayette is culturally rich and a public art installation designed by engineering studies students and the Lafayette community could perfectly highlight its ability to be academically diverse.

As defined in the problem, we believe engineering culture focuses too much on the technical rather than recognizing the benefits of a diverse understanding. Engineers struggle to understand the importance of varying opinions therefor creating a hierarchy between themselves and other disciplines. This project hopes to challenge these beliefs and change the current engineering culture. Engineering and Sustainable Community Development, written by Juan Lucena, works through community development case studies, highlighting the various problems engineers encountered when solely focusing on the technical aspects of engineering. Lucena reminds us that, “the engineer might have learned new techniques, approaches, or solutions to problems had he decided to engage the community and listen” (Lucena, 2010, p. 91). Most engineering curriculums don’t provide learning environments where engineering students work with students from other disciplines and therefore typically aren’t taught how to empathize and communicate effectively.

Engineers can learn a lot from other groups if they choose to listen, therefore for our project we have chosen to work with community members from different areas of expertise; Stacy Levy, Jim Toia, Mary Wilford-Hunt, Scott Hummel, Daniel Sabatino and Benjamin Cohen. Stacy Levy is an artist located in Spring Hills, Pennsylvania who has designed other art installations in the Easton area and throughout Pennsylvania. The rest of these advisors are members of Lafayette College faculty and staff. Jim Toia is an artist and professor. Mary Wilford-Hunt is the college’s architect and a professor. Scott Hummel is the Director of Engineering. Daniel Sabatino is a mechanical engineering professor at Lafayette College. Finally, Benjamin Cohen is the Engineering Studies capstone professor. Their input has provided us with varying opinions to create a sustainable, enticing, interdisciplinary project that includes an involved and engaged community. This project hopes to change the current culture to one where engineers and artists want to work together and recognize the importance of varying opinions and backgrounds. The book, New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development, mentions that “the objective of Cultural Development is culture–as a sociological dynamic in which society grows and changes; as a powerful sector of the economy; as a professional environment inhabited by skilled creators, artists and craftspeople; as a transmitter of aesthetic expression, ideas and values” (Goldbard, 2006, 121). This definition of cultural development showcases the value culture provides for a community. For Lafayette, the addition of art in the Acopian stairwell will bring together art, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, chemical engineering, and engineering studies in the hopes of changing the cultural dynamic of the engineering community to demonstrate how interdisciplinary engineering should be.

Lafayette College works to maintain a close relationship with Easton, therefore incorporating Easton’s history and culture is a valuable asset to the design. Easton’s two rivers, the Lehigh and the Delaware have contributed to Easton’s history, therefore we want the design to start as two rivers and expand into tributaries as they travel down the building. The staircase is visible from both the football field as well as Detrich Road that circles around Fisher Field. These viewpoints are important for students and visitors so installing artwork on the staircase will invite people to come to Acopian to get a closer look. The two rivers will also symbolize the bridging of engineering and liberal arts because as stated on the Lafayette website, “[i]nterdisciplinary academic programs encourage students to integrate knowledge and develop critical-thinking skills that transcend fields of study” (Lafayette, 2017).

Artwork taken from Stacy Levy’s website

Local artist, Stacy Levy, has designed multiple projects in the Easton community, one of which is the “Bushkill Curtain” which is installed on Bushkill Creek near Lafayette’s Film and Media Studies building. Part of our inspiration came from her project. We contacted her to include an artist’s opinion on the scope, materials, and overall idea and message of the project. As someone who has already worked closely with the Lafayette and Easton community as well as created many other public art installations, her input was incredibly valuable. She helped us with the feasibility of our design as well as useful materials, structural components, and stressed the importance of prototyping. (S. Levy, personal communication, November, 10, 2017). Gaining support and information from members inside and outside of Lafayette has helped remind the community the value of integrating disciplines.

Conclusion

We believe these three social contexts really define and expand upon what our project is hoping to solve. Each context explores a fundamental aspect of how we hope to change the engineering cultural and education and how the Lafayette community views engineering on this campus.