5.1 Research and Development
Many Ph.D. students carry out research in applied fields. They may share techniques, methods and practical tasks with people who develop products in industry. The Ph.D. student is usually awarded an academic title after a few years, but the engineer is not. If that title is to have any real value there must be a crucial difference between what they do.
In this book, the term research refers to scientific research – not to the work carried out in Research & Development organizations in industry. I will make the point that the difference between research and development lies in the purpose and outcome of the tasks, rather than in individual techniques and tasks. We may get an idea of what characterizes development work by looking at how the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) in the United States defines the engineering profession:
Engineering is the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences, gained by study, experience, and practice, is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind.
This, indeed, sounds like a respectable profession, but is engineering really the only occupation characterized by these things? Scientists, too, use mathematics and science with judgment and their work is funded because society expects to benefit from it in the long run. Let us keep this definition of engineering in the back of our minds and return to it later.
Drawing a line between engineering and science has nothing to do with how we value these activities. Our aim is simply to find the unique characteristics of research. If we cannot distinguish the scientific method from other methods, it is meaningless to put a name on it. It is especially important for researchers who teach and examine Ph.D. students to know what it means to “master the scientific method”, because this is an important learning outcome of the research education. If we cannot define it, how do we know if a student has learned it?
An interesting approach to the problem is provided by Mischke [1], who attempts to draw a line between science and engineering by pointing out that they are governed by two separate types of interest. Figure 5.1 shows some essential features that define these interests. There is a system, which is governed by the Laws of Nature. These laws determine the output that will result from a specific input to the system. We could, in principle, take two types of interest in these features. Our focus is either on the system itself or on the laws that govern it. Scientific research uses the system, the input and the output to find the governing laws. Engineering uses knowledge of the laws to find a system that will produce a desired output from a certain input [1]. It should be noted that the system does not have to be a physical object. Both scientists and engineers may be interested in non-physical systems like methods, computer programs and other processes, or even behaviors.
Figure 5.1 Four common features of research and engineering activities. There is a system that is governed by the laws of nature. Input into the system results in an output. Research uses the system, input and output to find the laws. Engineering uses the laws, input and output to devise the system. Adapted from Iowa State Press © 1980.
It is easy to find examples that match these criteria. For instance, using the laws of thermodynamics to devise an engine (system) that meets a certain fuel consumption target (output) in a specified test cycle (input) would clearly be engineering. Rolling a ball down an inclined plane (system) and measuring the times (output) required to cover predetermined distances (input) in order to establish Galileo's law would clearly be research, at least if it was done for the first time. On the other hand, it is equally easy to find examples of acclaimed researchers who have won their fame through activities that, by these criteria, must be considered to be engineering. Robert Millikan, whom we are going to meet in the next chapter, is one example. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for determining the charge of the electron. To do that he devised an ingenious apparatus where charged oil droplets were suspended in an electric field. Balancing the downward force of gravity by an upward electric force he could make the charged droplet hover. This made it possible to determine the droplet's charge, which turned out to always be a multiple of a certain number – the electron's charge. Clearly, to conceive this apparatus (system) he had to use his knowledge of the laws of gravity and electricity, and his knowledge of how these would produce a desired output (hovering) from a certain input (charges). And Millikan is not alone. The history of science is full of similar examples of “engineering”. Since scientists apparently do a great deal of this we should perhaps use a more general word for engineering, such as development, because all who develop things are clearly not engineers. In any case, research tasks cannot be defined in terms of their difference to engineering or development, since even basic research may involve such tasks. Mischke's criteria do not work if we apply them to individual tasks.
As previously stated, science aims to explain what happens under various conditions: the goal is general knowledge about the world. Another possible approach to our question is, therefore, to ask how general or specific the knowledge that results from certain activities is. As basic research explores the fundamental properties of nature it aims at the most general knowledge we can have about the world. Engineers also seek knowledge but of a more specific kind. In engineering, specific systems are developed to meet specific needs. Experiments may be used to find out how a system behaves but the goal is not to uncover all its fundamental properties. Engineers only need enough knowledge to be sure that the system will perform its intended function. Applied research finds itself somewhere between these two extremes. Here, researchers may work with quite specific applications, such as diesel engines, water purification, or fire safety. They may be interested in developing new methods or measuring techniques that are relevant to those fields. They may also be interested in testing the implications, limits or even the validity of established theories within their fields. Or they may be less focused on theories and more interested in explorative tests, stretching the limits of what is currently possible within their area of application. Regardless of their focus it is important to note that, although they are interested in a specific application, they seek to gain general knowledge and understanding at some level. Even if their work does not generate new theories, the results must still have a general relevance within their research community. If results obtained in one laboratory cannot be applied in other laboratories, they have no scientific relevance.
The distinction between research and development is a matter of the long-term aim of the activities. All researchers, even those in fundamental fields, must rely on specific observations made in specific situations, but they use those observations to develop general knowledge. Engineers, on the other hand, are interested in specific knowledge. Even when they apply general theories they do it to find out if a particular system works well enough or how it can be made to perform better.
In summary, if we want to discern research from other activities, it is too superficial to look at practical tasks. We need, instead, to look to the purposes of the tasks. Returning to ABET's definition of engineering we note that it does not only state what engineers do. It states the purpose of the profession, which is “to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind”. Scientists are not mainly concerned with what is economically and technically viable but with providing a knowledge base for others to build on. Looking to the purposes rather than the tasks we also see that Mischke's demarcation between science and engineering remains useful. Even though the individual tasks of scientists and engineers may be similar, the purpose of science is to understand the laws and the purpose of engineering is to devise the system.