%0 Unpublished work
%T European models of engineering education. Evolution and challenges
%+ Centre de recherche sur la formation (CRF)
%+ Département Sciences Humaines et Sociales ENSTA Bretagne (ENSTA Bretagne_SHS)
%A Gardelle, Linda
%@ 0304-3797
%J European Journal of Engineering Education
%C United Kingdom
%I Taylor & Francis
%S European journal of Engineering Education
%V vol. 42
%N n° 2
%8 2017-05-05
%D 2017
%K Engineering education
%K Engineering training models
%Z Humanities and Social Sciences/Education
%Z Humanities and Social Sciences/SociologySpecial issue
%X In the XIXth century, and first part of the XXth century, there were mainly three important engineertraining models in Europe, the German, the British and the French model, adapted in other Europeancountries that spread throughout the world. Due to the internationalisation of training, higher educationhas changed since the 1990s in most countries (Elliot et al. 2011). These changes have not beenexperienced in the same way in northern and southern hemispheres, in the different countries withinthese hemispheres, and in the different types of higher education establishments within thesecountries (Leclerc-Olive et al. 2011). Engineer training is interesting to observe in this context forseveral reasons. On one hand, engineers are often considered to be the vehicles of social progressand necessary innovations in society (Saad, Guermat, and Brodie 2015). Thus, they play a majorrole at a national level which is not just economic, but also social and political. Moreover, in somecountries such as France, engineering schools train elites (Lemaître 2011). Furthermore, in somecountries, such as France or Portugal, one finds specificities meaning that the institutions whichtrain engineers have been kept apart from the functioning and evolution of universities for severalcenturies (Grelon 2004). Such specific examples could help us identify the sources and drivers oftransformation, the potential for structural transformation in engineering education and the areasof 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 alsocompetition (Kennedy 2012). In order to make the European Union ‘the most competitive knowledgeeconomy in the world by 2014’, the Lisbon Strategy was defined in 2000 and as such was in direct linewith the Bologna Process. In a difficult economic and social context, with great expectations in termsof industrial renewal and strong injunctions to innovation, the training of engineers is at the heart ofthe challenges (Ramakrishna 2016; Morell 2016). This special edition of EJEE aims to compare trainingmodels, measure the reciprocal influences, the concrete effects of globalisation on these models andestablish what is unique to them. The contributions to this issue render, in a synthetic manner, thespecificities 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 varioustraining organisations? What attempts are made by the countries to maintain their specificities? Howdo changes in industry influence engineer training? What has become of the models since theBologna Process which has led to several concrete effects and increased standardisation? Arethere changes which are widely shared on an international scale? Do the differences correspondto those of the XIXth century? How do non-European countries position themselves today? Inthese countries, does one model dominate the others or do they combine to create a new form oflegitimisation, a hybrid of some sort? How do the national policies, the resistance of the stakeholdersand the relations between the States relate to each other in this competitive context? What are theproblems encountered by the training institutions? What are the challenges faced? The commitmentsmade? We also propose to debate the hypothesis of a homogenisation of engineer training policies inEurope, 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 differentcountries? What identity do they want their engineers to inherit? What professional identity isforged during training? In a context of injunctions to innovation, do the dictates for training engineerscapable of innovating combine in the same way in each country? How are their needs interpretedand translated pedagogically?
%G English
%L hal-01541466
%U https://hal-ensta-bretagne.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01541466
%~ SHS
%~ ENSTA-BRETAGNE
%~ TICE
%~ CNAM
%~ CDFT-CNAM
%~ CRF-CNAM
%~ AO-SOCIOLOGIE
%~ SOCIOLOGIE
%~ ENSTA-BRETAGNE-SHS
%~ ANR
%~ HESAM-CNAM
%~ HESAM