Friday, 27 September 2013

Do you prefer your sciences hard or soft?

High profile entrepreneur Luke Johnson prefers them hard, at the expense of the soft.

I criticised him for his view that research and education funding should be concentrated even more on science, technology, engineering and maths subjects in my post on the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference blog, which can be accessed here.

To summarise the post, it points out that the view that technology alone holds the key to individual, corporate, political, economic and social progress holds sway in business and politics. What is alarming now is that the humanities, social sciences and liberal arts are seen as irrelevant and suffer funding cuts and declines in student numbers whilst STEM skills and STEM oriented businesses are lauded.

Not for politicians such as Florida Governor Rick Scott and businesspeople such as Ed Conard broad arguments about the value of critical thinking, a knowledge of world history and imagination for a capable citizenry, narrower arguments about the humanities/liberal arts backgrounds of key businesspeople or even more pointed arguments about the relationship between an exposure to the arts and entrepreneurial success for STEM majors: No, these politicians and businesspeople doggedly assume a STEM education can teach you all you need to know about making things (whereas it might dull the ability to appreciate what people need), that STEM advances always enhance economies (they can actually shrink GDP) and that more STEM graduates are needed (but there might be an oversupplythere certainly isn’t a shortage).

In my capacity as one of the organisers I also invited Luke to attend EPIC. I wanted him to hear at first hand why "in order to be an engineer it is not enough to be an engineer," from some representatives of the technology companies he lauds.

Luke declined the offer and I responded: The exchange can be found below.



Thanks for the invitation.

I’m afraid I have too much to do to attend your conference.

I understand why you hold the views you do, but I stand by my opinion on the importance of STEM education if the UK is to retain its relative economic strength in the 21st century.  Social scientists didn’t found Google, Intel, IBM, Facebook, Microsoft etc.




Thanks for your response Luke,

Sorry to hear you can’t make the conference. Two points I’d like to make before signing off:

The STEM education / tech company success link isn’t that straightforward, because:

a) Microsoft et al.’s global dominance might be better (or at least co-) explained by a domestic US culture of risk taking or the availability of VC money for example
b) China and India churn out hundreds of thousands of engineers, yet lag in terms of innovation related to most STEM fields (measured by e.g. patents)
c) A number of US tech company founders dropped out of their STEM courses and are proud of it

As a senior person developing products at a well-known Internet company confided in me recently “purely engineering-driven companies do not succeed for long.” Most large players are investing heavily in understanding what people want so that their original inspirational ideas live on in relevant ways, or so that they can take bold new directions. In the UK, Amstrad might have been a different proposition with social scientists or humanities trained researchers on board

Kind regards,