European models of engineering education. Evolution and challenges
Résumé
In the XIXth century, and first part of the XXth century, there were mainly three important engineer
training models in Europe, the German, the British and the French model, adapted in other European
countries that spread throughout the world. Due to the internationalisation of training, higher education
has changed since the 1990s in most countries (Elliot et al. 2011). These changes have not been
experienced in the same way in northern and southern hemispheres, in the different countries within
these hemispheres, and in the different types of higher education establishments within these
countries (Leclerc-Olive et al. 2011). Engineer training is interesting to observe in this context for
several reasons. On one hand, engineers are often considered to be the vehicles of social progress
and necessary innovations in society (Saad, Guermat, and Brodie 2015). Thus, they play a major
role at a national level which is not just economic, but also social and political. Moreover, in some
countries such as France, engineering schools train elites (Lemaître 2011). Furthermore, in some
countries, such as France or Portugal, one finds specificities meaning that the institutions which
train engineers have been kept apart from the functioning and evolution of universities for several
centuries (Grelon 2004). Such specific examples could help us identify the sources and drivers of
transformation, the potential for structural transformation in engineering education and the areas
of tension in the development of old-established systems.
In the context of the globalisation and internationalisation of companies and the educational offer,
the question arises of homogenisation of training which implies not just standardisation but also
competition (Kennedy 2012). In order to make the European Union ‘the most competitive knowledge
economy in the world by 2014’, the Lisbon Strategy was defined in 2000 and as such was in direct line
with the Bologna Process. In a difficult economic and social context, with great expectations in terms
of industrial renewal and strong injunctions to innovation, the training of engineers is at the heart of
the challenges (Ramakrishna 2016; Morell 2016). This special edition of EJEE aims to compare training
models, measure the reciprocal influences, the concrete effects of globalisation on these models and
establish what is unique to them. The contributions to this issue render, in a synthetic manner, the
specificities of training systems of engineering in Europe and their influence in the context of globalisation.
We ask how the different countries position themselves to face the situation. And the various
training organisations? What attempts are made by the countries to maintain their specificities? How
do changes in industry influence engineer training? What has become of the models since the
Bologna Process which has led to several concrete effects and increased standardisation? Are
there changes which are widely shared on an international scale? Do the differences correspond
to those of the XIXth century? How do non-European countries position themselves today? In
these countries, does one model dominate the others or do they combine to create a new form of
legitimisation, a hybrid of some sort? How do the national policies, the resistance of the stakeholders
and the relations between the States relate to each other in this competitive context? What are the
problems encountered by the training institutions? What are the challenges faced? The commitments
made? We also propose to debate the hypothesis of a homogenisation of engineer training policies in
Europe, and thus the eventuality of the appearance of a ‘standard’ engineer of a ‘universal’ type,
called sometimes ‘global engineer’. What sort of engineers do they want to train in these different
countries? What identity do they want their engineers to inherit? What professional identity is
forged during training? In a context of injunctions to innovation, do the dictates for training engineers
capable of innovating combine in the same way in each country? How are their needs interpreted
and translated pedagogically?