THE CONTENT OF ENGINEERING LABOR AND THE HIGHER-EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR TRAINING SPECIALISTS

E. N. Kamyshev

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Scientific Communism)

Recently, at the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute, a program for the education and upbringing of student youth has been intensively developed. The first version of the program, developed by a collective of authors, was approved by the institute’s administration and accepted for practical implementation¹.

In 1968, with a view to further improving the program for the education and upbringing of students, the sociological group attached to the Department of Scientific Communism began a comprehensive sociological study of TPI graduates working at industrial enterprises, in design organizations, and in scientific institutions of Western Siberia.

In our study we proceeded from taking into account the contradiction within the system “higher school—socialist society,” namely the contradiction between the quality of specialist training and the requirements of modern production. The main task of the study, as the group sees it, is to analyze the characteristic elements of the personality structure of the young engineer of our time, which makes it possible to develop a system of indicators characterizing the formation of a highly qualified specialist, a graduate of a higher technical school. Such a system of indicators should serve both as an effective instrument for monitoring the formation of the future engineer’s personality on the part of the teaching staff of the higher educational institution, and as a kind of stimulus orienting students toward successful preparation for their future labor activity.

In Soviet literature, especially in the pages of the journal Vest—

...of higher school,” this problem has repeatedly been touched upon by various authors²). An analysis of their reasoning leads to the idea that, in order to resolve the identified contradiction in the desire to understand it as fully as possible, it is necessary to approach it in two ways.

First, from the point of view of such a division of engineering labor as has found its reflection in the currently existing specialization of training for engineering and technical personnel, and is based on the differing content of engineering labor characteristic of the production of diverse products; for example, an engineer specializing in “electrical insulation and cable technology,” or “computer technology,” or “thermal-power installations of electric power stations,” etc. Such an approach should lead to the creation of an optimal variant of the curricula of the existing specialties³).

Second, from the point of view of such a division of engineering labor as is based on the differing content of this labor within a single specialty. The difference in the content of labor here is caused by the differing place of one or another engineer in the process of production of a specific product; for example, a research engineer, design engineer, organizing engineer or manager, etc.⁴). This approach has been developed less than the first, but is, of course, no less important.

Our research is being conducted mainly in the context of the second approach. This naturally makes it less comprehensive, but it does make it possible to study one part of the problem in greater detail and depth. Previously, the author had occasion to substantiate the relevance of studying this kind of division of engineering labor in theoretical form as applied to the effectiveness of higher technical education⁵). Now, as the primary empirical material of the study is received and processed, it has become possible to test the theoretical reasoning on concrete material and, most importantly, to determine how far this division has already gone.

In the theoretical analysis it was important to find such criteria for the division of engineering labor that interests us which, being made the basis of classification, would reflect the aim of the work to the greatest possible degree and would remove the disturbing influences of other types of classifications.

Analyzing the various principles of classification of types of labor proposed in our literature, one may conclude that most of them were developed as applied to workers, and not to engineering and technical personnel, and therefore do not satisfy the aim of the present work, although in some respects they do coincide with it⁶).

The classification developed by the staff of the USSR Research Institute of Labor appears to be closest to the task of our analysis; they distinguish three main types of labor in the sphere of management,

²) See also: The Effectiveness of Training Specialists, Kaunas, 1969.

³) See: Yu. F. Chubuk, G. L. Gaukach. In Search of New Ways of Training Engineers. Vestnik vysshei shkoly, No. 1, 1969.

⁴) Philosophical and Sociological Studies. Pp. 135–145, LSU, 1967.

⁵) Materials of the Conference of Young Scholars in the Social Sciences, dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of V. I. Lenin. Pp. 105–109, issue 2, TSU, Tomsk, 1969.

⁶) See, for example: A. Zvorykin. Labor and Technical Progress. Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 10, 1961; S. G. Strumilin. Economic Problems of the Automation of Production. Moscow, 1957; G. P. Kozlova, Z. I. Feinburg. Changes in the Character of Labor and the All-Round Development of Man. Voprosy filosofii, No. 3, 1963. O. I. Shkaratan. The Working Class and the Scientific-Technical Revolution. Voprosy filosofii, No. 11, 1968; Man and His Work, Moscow, 1967.

reflecting the level of creative possibilities of the work^7). From their point of view, any function in the field of management consists of collecting the necessary information (technical work); studying, processing, and analyzing information and issuing recommendations (creative work proper); formalizing the results and transmitting them for further use (technical work); leadership in finding optimal decisions for implementing specialists’ recommendations in practice (administrative-organizational work); and monitoring the technical and organizational aspects of implementing recommendations (technical work). Therefore they accordingly divide all employees of the management apparatus into technical executors, managers, and specialists. Such a division of employees of the management apparatus is also provided for by the Unified Nomenclature of Positions of Employees, approved by the State Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on Labor and Wages.

In our analysis, taking into account the existing points of view and in accordance with the aim of the study, the following two basic characteristics were adopted as criteria in the classification of engineering labor:

1. The ratio of expenditures of creative and formalized labor. In this connection the following groupings were distinguished: labor requires mainly expenditures of formalized labor (1); expenditures of formalized labor are much greater than creative labor (2); expenditures of formalized labor are greater than expenditures of creative labor (3); expenditures of formalized labor are equal to expenditures of creative labor (4); expenditures of formalized labor are less than expenditures of creative labor (5); expenditures of formalized labor are much less than creative labor (6); the activity requires mainly expenditures of creative labor (7).

2. The level of applied knowledge in the specialty. Here, knowledge in the specialty is understood as knowledge of the theory describing the functioning or state of particular products in whose production the worker participates. The following groupings of the level of knowledge were distinguished: “low”—knowledge in the specialty is not required (L); “elementary”—knowledge is required of the purpose of the main units and of the general principle of operation of the product (El); “medium”—the principle of action of the main units and of the product as a whole (M); “above medium”—knowledge of the general schematic diagram, the purpose and principle of action of each element of the product (AM); “high”—the same knowledge as at the other levels, plus deep knowledge of the scientific theory underlying the operation of the product and of its individual elements (H).

The combination of these characteristics made it possible to classify workers of engineering and technical labor into the following groups:

Technical executors (TE)

1. Employees whose labor is based on formalized functions, is easily subject to standardization, may require extensive knowledge for a specific labor function, but does not require knowledge in the specialty (timekeepers, secretaries, typists, clerks, operators of calculating machines, bookkeepers).

2. Employees whose labor is based on formalized functions, is easily subject to standardization, and requires both the worker’s production skills and elementary knowledge in the specialty—

^7) Scientific Organization of Labor of Engineering and Technical Workers and Employees, p. 7. Moscow, 1968.

... (employees of supply and sales departments, inspectors, testers).

Managers (R)

1. Administrative managers, whose work is based more on formalized functions than on creative ones, require an elementary level of specialized knowledge (but deep knowledge of the functions performed by the group being managed); their work is connected mainly with monitoring labor discipline and monitoring the implementation of the developed technology.

2. General managers, engaged in modifying previously developed methods of management as applied to a specific task, distributing functions among subordinate managers, and monitoring the execution of their own orders. This group requires an average level of specialized knowledge, allowing them to orient themselves in the surrounding situation; however, as regards methods and techniques aimed at directing the collective toward fulfillment of the production task, their knowledge must be deep.

3. Technical managers, engaged in evaluating and resolving special issues of the technical prospects for the development of an enterprise, shop, or department, ensuring modern and high-quality preparation of production, proper use and modernization of equipment, and organization of the work of specialists.

Specialists (S)

1. Employees of departments (technologists, designers, etc.)—workers engaged in designing and ensuring the operation of equipment. Their work is more creative than formal, but requires a large amount of computational, written, and drafting work. This category may also include specialists engaged in labor and material standardization.

2. Researchers—primarily laboratory workers, called upon to identify in good time and to give recommendations for eliminating the causes that hinder the production of products. Their work is mainly creative in nature and requires a high level of knowledge of the functioning of the product.

3. Higher-education teachers—their work requires a high level of knowledge of the theory underlying the operation of the product, but contains many formal elements connected with delivering lectures.

4. Scientific workers—more often employees of research institutes, engaged in creative work in one or another area of theory, which, naturally, requires a high level of knowledge.

Table 1 shows in what ratio the criteria of the content of engineering labor adopted by us are expected for the selected groups.

Table 1

Leaving aside the discussion of which kinds of work require engineering training and which do not, the author had previously noted that, in practice, graduates of technical higher educational institutions work in all the groups distinguished. On this basis, and also because the higher educational institution does not differentiate the training of engineers in terms of the groups identified, the hypothesis was put forward that they work with varying degrees of effectiveness.

If, on the basis of an analysis of the empirical material of the study, it were possible to prove this hypothesis, then it would make sense to continue the analysis further. It would be possible to analyze in detail the differences among the respondents composing each group and, on this basis, to derive a system of indicators that a graduate of TPI who has received the right to work within its bounds ought to satisfy.

However, first of all it is necessary to prove the validity of the proposed division and also, if the need arises, to correct it on the basis of the specific empirical material. Here a number of difficulties immediately arise.

Thus, already at the initial stage of the study, having chosen a TPI graduate as the unit of observation and carrying out proportional sampling, it becomes necessary, because of the small size of some groups, to reduce their number to five. Of course, in order to ensure a sufficient number of observations in each group for representativeness, it would have been possible to carry out disproportionate sampling, but there was no special need for this. After all, proceeding from the aims of the study, it is not so important for us to prove the validity of distinguishing each group as it is to prove the validity of distinguishing those groups in which the majority of the institute’s graduates work. Indeed, what is the point of analyzing a kind of engineering activity that will be characteristic of an absolute minority of graduates?

Therefore, among managers one group was selected, based on administrative managers (foremen, senior foremen, deputy shop chiefs, shop chiefs). Among technical performers, it proved impossible to carry out any classification, or even to ensure a sufficient sample on the average for the group, because of the very small number of engineers working in it.

Incidentally, it may be noted that talk about the supposed devaluation of the engineer now taking place in our country, about a mass of engineers being turned into typists and accounting clerks, at least in the case of TPI graduates, does not have such firm ground beneath it as its supporters believe.^8

In the final form, the following five groups were selected for the study, characterized by different content of engineering labor and representing the absolute majority of graduates:

— managers (mainly administrative);

— department employees (mainly designers and technologists);

— laboratory employees (researchers);

— teachers at higher educational institutions (mainly assistants);

— scientific workers (employees of research institutes).

The total sample population was 421 young engineers representing 26 different electromechanical specialties.

^8 See the discussion that took place on the pages of Literaturnaya gazeta in 1970.

The groups singled out are hypothetically arranged in the order of increasing creative elements in the work and of the level of specialized knowledge applied.

Confirmation of this, in terms of the first criterion of the classification, will be sought in the distributions of answers given by the immediate supervisors of the young engineer to the question:

— What approach, in your opinion, does his work require?

1 — A formal one.
2 — Much more formal than creative.
3 — More formal than creative.
4 — Formal and creative in equal measure.
5 — More creative than formal.
6 — Much more creative than formal.
7 — Creative.

If the ordinal number of each answer is taken as the rank assigned to it, then the series of arithmetic means for the distributions of answers, beginning with the group of supervisors and ending with researchers, will be as follows:

$$ 5.02;\quad 5.80;\quad 5.83;\quad 5.80;\quad 6.27 $$

Therefore one may assert that such a classification of the groups as was proposed is, in principle, correct according to the criterion of creative elements in the work. The whole question is whether the differences between all the groups according to this criterion may be regarded as significant, or whether they are negligible.^9)

Calculations of the degree of significance of the differences, carried out by means of the normalized difference, show that, with an error probability equal to 0.05, the sample population can be divided only into three groups:

— supervisors;
— department employees, researchers, and instructors of higher educational institutions;
— scientific workers.

It is important to note that these differences fluctuate between 5 and 7 ranks, indicating a comparatively high use of creative elements in the work, although the number of these elements differs for each group. This fact also permits the application of calculations characteristic of an equal-interval scale and a ratio scale^10).

As for the second criterion by which the classification was carried out, information about it can be obtained from the institute’s archival data on the academic performance of a given graduate in specialized disciplines, and also from the opinions of the graduates themselves regarding the sufficiency of this knowledge for the work they perform. In the ideal case, in order to obtain the level of specialized knowledge applied, we should correct the first by the second.

In our study the question is simplified. The point is that only supervisors and department employees, with insignificant differences between them, rate their specialized knowledge comparatively highly. The remaining groups rate it lower, and their ratings also differ insignificantly from one another. The distribution of actual ratings obtained at the institute gives the opposite picture: comparatively low among supervisors and department employees and comparatively high among the other groups. Hence—

^9) For the method of calculation, see: A. Bernstein, Handbook of Statistical Decisions, pp. 30–76, Moscow, 1968; or Man and His Work, pp. 346–347, Moscow, 1967.

^10) We use the terminology proposed by S. Stevens. See: S. Stevens, Experimental Psychology, IL, 1960.

falls away, as does the need for correction, since such an operation will undoubtedly make the proof more profound, but will not change its essence and, moreover, will greatly complicate the calculations.

For clarity, let us give two series of arithmetic-mean values of the indicated distributions by groups, beginning with managers and ending with scientific workers.

Assessments: 3.65; 3.77; 4.00; 4.26; 3.99.
Opinions: 2.19; 2.24; 1.85; 1.79; 1.89.

The assessments at the institute were measured, as is generally accepted, on a scale from 3 to 5; the engineers’ own opinion of the sufficiency of their knowledge in their specialty was measured on a scale from 1 to 3 (3 means sufficient, 1 means insufficient).

Calculations of significance criteria show that, with an error probability equal to 0.05, in terms of the level of applied knowledge in the specialty, our population of young engineers may be subdivided into the following three groups:

managers and department employees;
researchers and scientific workers;
university instructors.

The combination of the two criteria confirms the validity of distinguishing 5 groups, which, as the empirical material shows, are substantially different. As a result, Table 1 takes the following form.

Table 2

The conventional designations are as follows: R means managers, O means department employees, I means researchers, P means university instructors, N means scientific workers, t means the level of use in the work of elements of creative labor, with t-3 greater than t-2, and t-2 greater than t-1; z means the level of applied knowledge in the specialty, with z-3 greater than z-2, and z-2 greater than z-1.

On the basis of all that has been said, one may conclude that, in order to improve the effectiveness of the training of engineers, it makes sense to carry out a detailed analysis of the groups identified. It is necessary to test the hypothesis concerning the different quality of work of graduates depending on their assignment to one or another group, and, if it is confirmed, to study the optimal manifestation of graduates’ personal qualities for successful labor activity in each group. But this is already a task for further analysis of the empirical materials of the study.

1. Program for the upbringing of full-time students for the entire period of study at the institute. Tomsk, 1968. ↩