Features editor
Stuart wonders whether we’re in a golden age of engineering television, and if we need more or better depiction of engineers and engineering in popular culture.
It’s often said — by us and our readers — that if the portrayal of engineers and engineering in our culture improved, it would solve some of the problems of the perception of the discipline and of the industries that depend on it. But my colleague Jason Ford’s latest Monday Briefing contained an item on this which has triggered some lively discussion. A TV company has asked for our help to identify an engineer who could front a programme based on inventing, building and then selling devices, vehicles and so on made from parts found in garden sheds, barns and garages.
Several readers have taken exception at the idea that this is a favourable depiction of engineering, with one commenter coining the memorable phrase ‘look at the clever grease monkey TV.’ Which leads me to wonder whether the company have contacted Lincolnshire motorbike racer and Wolverine lookalike Guy Martin, whose day job is truck mechanic and who strikes me as the sort of person who wouldn’t mind at all being described as a grease monkey. No offence, Mr Martin, if you’re reading.
However, it strikes me that we’re actually in a pretty good period for representation of engineering on television — better than we’ve seen for some time. The BBC’s digital channel is running a series on unbuilt infrastructure and civil engineering projects, linking the old designs for projects such as the 19th century Channel tunnel and Joseph Paxton’s glass-covered arcade circling London with modern designs and concepts with interviews with working engineers and architects. Dara O’Briain’s Science Club is occupying a prime midweek slot and proving to be more of a STEM Club, with O’Briain’s background as a physics graduate standing him in good stead and his co-presenters, our old friend Prof Mark Miodownik, physicist and oceanographer Helen Czerski and science writer Alok Jha making illuminating guides through a whole range of engineering-linked technologies. Miodownik’s recent ‘How it works’ series is getting a second airing, giving a working engineer’s guide to the development, properties and use of a whole range of materials. Another BBC series, Genius of Invention, looked at the development of technologies such as power generation and engines with the help of companies like Rolls-Royce, again with Prof Miodownik’s involvement. And the Discovery Channel show Extreme Engineering, presented by Danny Forster, who is qualified as an architect, presents the everyday problems and solutions encountered on major engineering projects such as bridges and drilling operations.
So are we just complaining for the sake of complaining, as we Brits so often do? What more do we want? Perhaps a show aimed and scheduled specifically for younger viewers? One idea that’s often floated is a fictional depiction of engineers, presumably because TV has done so much for lawyers and doctors. But that’s probably a non-starter — the reason medicine and law (and crime, for that matter) make such good subjects for dramatic fiction is that they’re really about people and their relationships. If someone could work that into a show based in an engineering practice it might work, but I can easily imagine the carping about how ‘real engineering’ was being sidelined and misrepresented in favour of ‘soapiness’.
Another complaint is that these programmes are fronted by academics and ‘celebrities’ rather than working engineers. Putting aside the fact that working engineers are probably too busy actually working at engineering to start a new job as TV presenter, the people we see are professional communicators of various types. I don’t think any engineer could object to the thought of the enthusiastic and knowledgable Prof Miodownik being associated with the profession (although his choice of floral shirts is sometimes questionable). Perhaps there might be better representation of science and technology on current affairs shows such as ‘Question Time’ — currently, stand-up comedians and Nigel Farage stand more chance of being invited on than someone who actually knows anything about something practical.
One format that I could imagine succeeding is something based on ‘The Apprentice’ format with contestants faced with a series of different engineering challenges: product design, crisis management role-play, constructing a business case for a manufacturing project, for example. An expert panel (which would probably consist of some of the ‘personalities’ we see at the moment) would act as a judge, with contestants eliminated week by week to end up with an Engineering Champion. It needs some work — what might the prize be? A job with a consultancy? The fulfilment of a cherished personal project? — but it could be an interesting way to showcase the different aspects of engineering and demonstrate how much of it depends on collaboration and discussion.
It’s interesting to se that most of the people listed above are in fact Scientists rather than Engineers. People seem to see clever engineering as science.
One thought on a potential programme, my Wife loves a US programme called Numbers where a mathematician helps out the police in investigations. A lot of what he does is in fact Engineering.
I would love to see a UK version where the hero was an Engineer
It’s time that the masses were made aware that without engineers they would still be living in caves and hitting each other over the head with bones.
So why do we need a TV programme, factual or ficational, about / starring / presented by engineers at all to make the profession better recognised? I don’t see any programmes championing dentists, architects, university professors, yet they seem to have the status they require. Lawyers and Doctors are there for dramatic effect. Teachers by and large for comedic value. What next – Estate Agents?
Sorry but I don’t see this as a route to proper recognition, beacuse the majority of “engineers” on TV will still be the white-goods and car mechanics anyway.
It’s all well and good having these engineering type programmes on tv but…..who watches them? I do because I’m an old fart engineer who like this stuff. But what about the rest of the population especially youngsters? Nina and the Neurons on CBeebies is great for an early introduction for how things work but then what?
The whole point is that if we want more and better engineers then we need to skip a generation as it’s too late ( they want to be celebrities anyway!) and go for the next . Wait a minute…..could we not invent a “celebrity” engineer programme along the lines of Britains Got Talent with a huge fame based prize at the end???
back to my point though…if we could introduce engineering disguised as entertainment for youngsters and teens….instead of Bob the Builder then Eric the Engineer who invents all sorts of solutions for people in trouble etc etc.
Or is it all just too much bother and we go on as always?
Fictional characters play a large part in how a profession is perceived, maybe even more than real ones!
So thanks to Startrek’s Scotty and La Forge for not only saving the Captains butt countless times with their engineering prowess, but also for getting me interested in engineering!
If it hadn’t been for them I could have been rich and in a boring job!
or how about The Adventures of Pi Man who invents cool solutions to the hero’s problem using a Raspberry Pi? Kids could follow along at home by building the device themselves…or……sort of updated Joe 90 (remember him) ….he could have real Google glasses for goodness sake! Oh here, I’m on a roll….I need to go lie down!
What about taking “apprentice” back to its vocational roots and having a similar show called “Design” where budding designers are tasked to create designs rather than business and sales models. Trouble is we have no Engineering equivalent to Sir Sugar visible in society.
No sctratch that, I’ll stick to engineering and let the media graduates deal with that one.
I, like many (I expect), have been quietly sneering at some of the drivel being produced this week about engineering on TV. However, that’s not really going to improve matters. So here’s a more positive suggestion.
Panorama (or its ilk) do a program answering the question – Is a wind turbine really green. However, instead of the usual journalist/presenter cutting snippets of information from many parties, all of whom seem to get equal weighting, have it presented by an engineer with facts and figures, real maths, whole lifecycle considerations and discussion on business finances when considering subsidies.
A competent professional engineer will be able to cut through the hype and self interest and answer the question in a way that the viewers understand and can believe, not the more abrasive, adversarial style of the programme. As the presentation of the facts would by necessity include the pros and cons with their relative merits (not equal weighting based on e.g. air time or one voice per side) it is likely that the majority of viewers would be comfortable with the conclusions. Equally, it would clearly be an unbiased assessment, not tainted by political or commercial interest, nor by the need to show off journalistic style for career advancement.
It might just work…or am I, like others on this site, going to carry on with my work and let the rest of society muddle on, confused by the self-interested.
Competitions that will showcase young talent and enspire future generations. So perhaps appropriate media coverage of these events will get youngsters and companies on board!
Please come to the Skills Show in November and support the Cnc Turning and Milling competitors!
As a 21 year old engineering student I can attest that young people do indeed watch science club & the like.
I know I’m a bit nerdy so there is a selection bias but considering the increasing popularity of geek culture amongst the young I’d be surprised if I was the only one. It is becoming cool to be interested in sci&tech.
STEM based popular shows (science club/stargazing live/genius of invention etc) are a definite & recent improvement but I certainly think the big improvement will be when engineering viewpoint become common in more serious programs like panorama/question time as already cited.
One of my favourite programmes as a child was the “Great Egg Race” hosted by the inspirational Prof Heinz Wolff.
Without engineers this civilisation would not exist. But all the same this civilisation never honours engineers. Why is it so?
Competitions such as milling is not engineering though. It is rare to see an engineer using a mill even if he is trained to do so. This is typically a technicians role.
Andy- Please tell me when a Engineering Technician or Tool maker becomes and Engineer or a Graduate become one, when he’s never lifted a spanner, or repaired his own bike or car. May be not even be nurtured on Lego and Mechano. Yes the industry needs higher mathematical skill, but also needs mechanical experience to design well, the best Engineers do lot for themselves and can’t do well in an ivory tower. Yes the profile of engineering needs to be lifted but the industry also needs to strip away the divide between white an blue collar, before it can truly move forward.
John- Universities teach practical skills to the engineering students. You become trained to use a mill and may even gain further practical experience by doing projects like formula student. In industry it is rare to see an engineer working on a lathe, mill etc. Still there are many opporunities to assemble and manufacture but this is more for initial concpet work. Even then manufacturing technicians would often carry out the majority of the work. Engineering and manufacturing are two joined but not the same professions. An architect designs the house, the builder builds it. The mechanical engineer designs the car, the technicians build it. The aerospace engineer designs the aircraft, again the technician builds it. And so on. As I mentioned at the conceptual stage there is perhaps more opportunities to manufacture but you don’t need a degree to operate a mill. You can learn the limitations and capabilities early on, often on the degree itself and later you design.
…or we could simply bring back “Tomorrow’s World”!
I note that lots of other 1970s staples have made a return.
Why not?
Andy would you class someone who has done a 4 year mechanical engineering apprenticeship as an engineer or technician? Do you need a degree to be an engineer? BTW I am a time served apprentice with a C&G in mechanical engineering and 30+ years experience, I design, build and fix all kinds of machinary and have managed engineers whose abilities don’t always match their qualifications.
To get back onto the subject thread bring back the Great Egg Race, brilliant television, we need more programmes that show the flexability and problem solving abilities of engineers without them being covered in oil everytime.
Engineering through an apprentice scheme was common place 30 years ago. This is not the route to engineering today. Degree is the standard and the requirement (of course previously this was not the case). If you are looking for manufacturing jobs then a degree is not necessary. I fully agree that it creates a situation where lack of experience of manufacturing creates unrealistic designs. This is managed well by using a manufacturing engineer who has specialised skills to oversee the designs where necessary. They often are degree qualified but this may not be necessary when a great amount of experience has been acquired.
It may be worth considering that there are two (broad) types of ‘Engineers’. One type (Type Is)–) those who are happiest concentrating on a narrow, detailed & technical problem to solve. My stereotype would suggest that they tend to find the messy imprecise world of politics, economics and the wider public ‘difficult’. Another type – perhaps more like the Victoria Archetype of Brunel and the Stephenson’s – relished the messy public world (whilst still being able to quickly fathom the technologies of their domain).
Perhaps we need more ‘Type IIs’ – who can present themselves to the public as the cultural equals of the politicians, media commentators etc. This is why I often worry about Engineers being steered to meeting the ‘needs of employers’ and ‘skills’. Anyone who aims to be a type II ‘Leader’ type of engineer needs, as well as knowledge of the fundamentals of Maths and Physics, to be able to have a top mastery of English (better than mine!) and history of the political as well as scientific. They also need to be comfortable in debating – something type I’s are often not. Also, presenting engineers as ‘experts’ is not always a good thing – as it puts engineers above everyone else – when really we need thick skinned individuals to argue and get involved.
With a few ambitious and confident engineers like this – then we are more likely to see them represented on say Question Time, where they need to be confident enough to express sophisticated opinions on such topics as ‘foreign intervention in Syria (or not) ‘ or ‘Abortion’. We may also end up with a few Politicians with engineering experience.
sunil’s question: why are we so poorly paid?
my answer
Simple: most so-called professions only start to operate when the damage, harm,distress has already occurred. [backache, toothache, writs flying, numbers to be ‘creatively accounted for…lies to be fabricated (PR?) and projected into the meja so ‘management’ will pay whatever it takes to fabricate the cover-up/cure? or to reduce the pain.
…whereas we as Engineers spend most of our time keeping our clients/employers/the State OUT of trouble before it happens!
We manipulate Nature’s Laws to the benefit of all mankind, not man’s laws to the benefit of the highest payer?
Great Egg Race – bring it on – one of the best programmes ever.
When is an engineer an engineer? – when Chartered status is obtained, pure and simple. Just as a an articled clerk is not a Solicitor, or a nures a Doctor, until that registration is achieved.
We have to face up to the fact that the vast majority of the world is populated by people who are not engineers and that in the UK particularly, non-engineers are convinced we all operate lathes and have dirty fingernails, or that we turn up to repair their car or washing machine. We must also concede that popular culture defines social norms to a great extent and is driven by the media, so placing engineers as the heroes and prime movers in TV soaps and dramas is the best way to begin the erosion of the stereotypes we all suffer under: that, and getting the UK government to agree that the title “Engineer” is protected in the same way as Doctor, Nurse, Barrister etc. so that the technician or mechanic who fixes your car or washing machine – well skilled and qualified as they may be – can’t use it.
When I read a newspaper I might come across a word that I don’t know the meaning of. I don’t let that stop the flow of what I’m reading, but I do make a mental note. If that word turns up again I get a better feel for its meaning…. so it’s either multiple passes or look it up! If I decide it’s pompous and that a simple easy phrase is all that was needed I allow its memory to fade away. Otherwise, I will try and use it myself when I think it’s appropriate… waiting for any flack! This is the way of the Engineer; notice that it takes time.
I’ve had the opportunity of teaching young people (Scout age actually) electronics…. I’m not a professional teacher and quite naturally started with something “interesting” to build. Only to find that at any stage one needs to know how the constituent parts work first; for a true understanding. This goes back in time like a set of Russian dolls stacked inside each other. What I learnt was that I know a hell-of-a lot of facts and they just can’t be dumped on anyone in the odd lesson.
Makes me laugh when I look at the uphill struggle in how to learn to program these development computer modules, now all the rage. In my view you start somewhere interesting then work in both directions; basic and advanced.
The point is that Science/ engineering TV programs, so far, talk absolute simplicity and then mind boggling outcomes…. they never talk about the “boring” stuff in the middle that makes it all work! If you are going to be encouraging engineers then you have to cover this middle bit with enough detail for the viewer/ potential engineer to get their hands dirty too. Bring back those Open University programs, but this time spend good money on presentation…. Any time of day will do… I’ve got a PVR.
By the way… I started as a Decca apprentice in 1964 and have never stopped learning… in fact I feel ready to get stuck in about now!
It is perhaps worth remembering that without engineers there would be no television to watch, or internet to surf, or rock concerts or Olympic opening ceremonies to marvel at. But the engineering that allows it all to happen, some of it truly fantastic, is all behind the scenes stuff. And behind the scenes is where most of us prefer to be. Engineers being in the show usually means something has gone horribly wrong. Maybe that is why finding someone to host a TV show is not easy.
I, also, add my vote for “The Great Egg Race”. Not dumb, real problem solving with a blend of manufacturing and analytical skills. The closest that television has ever got to showing the engineering process and, more importantly, showing it as of interest in its own right.
One, showing how popular presentation is mismanaged from my own experience:
An event in which I was involved required a straightforward description of what we had developed. This needed a simple account of the differerence between “heat” and “temperature”. This was declared much to complex and so what went out was both incorrect and meaningless. The same people who did this disservice als want to discuss “levelised costing”. I pointed out that this was hardly in the common understanding, however, their view was that it was well understood and so it went in. Result? total incomprehension.
This illustrates the probelm that the people making the presentation will over colour based on their own backgrounds. Given the hopeless level of technical understanding within the arts and business worlds it is incredibly hard for an engineer to get his/her need to explain the technical across. The engineer almost never gets the chance as it is blocked by the technophobic tendencies of those who have appointed themselves as presentation leaders.
Think I’ll stop worrying and get back to some engineering.
I like the sound of Michael Bradley’s idea (Panorama style program presented by an engineer).
It probably will never happen though – too much vested interest, and enthusiasm by the media for junk science. Breakfast TV anyone?
Is there a business out there that has no involvement from an Engineer? No I don’t think so. From birth to death we are dependent on Engineers and Engineering Entrepreneurs for everything.