20/04/2017
My abstract has been accepted for a presentation in the "Making and Doing" session at the upcoming (late summer) annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S).
Here's my submittal:
Toward Improving Public Policy for Structural Engineering Design of Bridge, Transportation, and Marine Infrastructure
Submitter: Julie Mark Cohen, PhD, PE, SECB, Authors/Participants: Julie Mark Cohen, PhD, PE, SECB
Description:
In the United States, the public's demand on infrastructure has grown to exceed capacity. Inspection and maintenance have been chronically neglected. Infrastructure has been allowed to wear out with funding a persistent issue. Another reason for infrastructure deterioration is not as readily apparent: structural engineers have not used available knowledge in their designs, thus unintentionally causing failures, some of which occurred soon after structures were placed in service. Dr. Cohen has substantiated this reason with historical data and examination of states of knowledge and practice within structural engineering (SE). She extended her review by including the states of knowledge within related fields of engineering to identify knowledge creators. In doing so, she opened the door to a study of the culture and traditions of structural engineering practice, specifically the use of knowledge in design decision-making, as well as flaws in SE practice and public policy.
Within the STS community, structural engineering is an overlooked engineering profession. In the United States, SE education differs from other fields with undergraduate education under the umbrella of civil engineering. In SE, the culture of design decision-making and traditions in practice also differ. Design decisions are shaped by forces from human and non-human "entities," both external and internal to SE. These include accredited university curricula, professional magazines/journals, textbooks, codes, national standards, fabricators, manufacturers' catalogs, professional societies, state licensing agencies, government entities' initiatives and policies, clients' budgets, research in structural engineering and related engineering fields, and failures. Yet, SE does not have a tradition of using available, requisite knowledge in related engineering fields, such as metallurgical engineering. This chronic "intellectual blindness" unintentionally results in infrastructure failures. With the many different types of forces influencing SE practice and recurring failures, no single STS conceptual framework is appropriate. A hybrid conceptual framework is needed with non-human actors from Actor-Network Theory and knowledge flow (not directionless diffusion) with creators, carriers, conveyors and users, as well as feedback loops and externalization from Knowledge Management Systems.
In a pilot study of one particular failure type (thru-fractures of steel bolt and threaded rod from not using a 1932 ASTM standard developed by metallurgists), a hybrid conceptual framework is developed and its efficacy is explored. This project serves as the analytical foundation for the author's larger effort, "U.S. Structural Engineers: Constraints on Design Decisions and Recurring, Costly Infrastructure Failures, 1930-2017." More importantly, it introduces the STS community to a new STS hybrid conceptual framework that can be employed when "intellectual blindness" can be attributed to recurring failures in another field in engineering, or in science, medicine, or another technical field.
The results from the pilot study offer the platform to develop initial recommendations (1) to improve SE education, practice, licensure, and continuing education, and (2) for forward-thinking public policy regarding infrastructure by improving how structural design decisions are made, starting with requirements for third-party independent peer review.
Other Requirements:
I am planning for a three-part presentation that accomplishes the following: (1) share information about the type of structural failure used in the pilot study, (2) introduce the new STS hybrid conceptual framework, and (3) demonstrate how the hybrid conceptual framework provides a platform for develop initial recommendations and what these may be. The three parts provide a cohesive presentation. Also, each part provides a complete presentation on its subject matter.
With a laptop, I will present a "looping" (restarting) slide show with dated, chronological images. The first slide contains information on the 1932 ASTM A143 standard. The subsequent slides are photographs of failures of entire structures (i.e., large diameter culvert pipe, bulkhead coffer dam, others) and of structures that contained failed bolts and threaded rods that were expensive to replace (i.e., east portion of new Oakland-Bay Bridge). Slides with various "events" (i.e., structural engineering publications without recognition of ASTM A143) will be included. The slides are to share information on the structural engineering aspects of the pilot study, as well as impress upon the viewer that these failures are recurring and costly.
With one poster, I will present the pilot-study-specific graphics of the STS hybrid conceptual framework. The viewer will be able to glean information on the knowledge creator (here, the ASTM A143 standard), knowledge carriers (human and non-human), knowledge conveyors (mostly human), and knowledge users (and non-users), and impeders. Forces external and internal to SE will be graphically represented with their effects. Feedback loops (or where there were opportunities for them) will also be shown.
With a second poster, I will present the pilot study results which offer the platform to develop initial recommendations (1) to improve SE education, practice, licensure, and continuing education, and (2) for forward-thinking public policy regarding infrastructure by improving how structural design decisions are made, starting with requirements for third-party independent peer review.
The laptop and two posters can stand side-by-side, depending on the surface dimensions of the table and the location of the table.
