What makes a person
an engineer?
Is it understanding how to code?
The kind of tech stack or language used?
Is it what Github developers think? The comments on Reddit or Discord?
Or knowing CAD?
Creo? Solidworks? Autodesk? What about FreeCAD?
Do you know your skills and shortcuts? The most “efficient” way?
Or knowing electrical systems and development?
Do you know Arduino?
What about Raspberry pi?
Is it passing an array of technical classes from an ABET accredited university?
Who the fuck is ABET anyways?
Is being an engineer my retained knowledge?
Am I still an engineer if I forget the little thermodynamics I learned to begin with?
Is it being employed?
Being a formal employee at a “real” company?
The “engineering” I do at work is very different from what my career counselors discussed.
A job manager’s opinion on whether I fit into the box of the job description?
…am I still an engineer?
Why is so much of the identity of an engineer dependent on these meaningless questions?
yet, questions with so much weight.
So, where does that leave us with the question:
The word “engineer” comes from the Latin word “ingenium,” which means “natural talent or creativity.” So, at the core, “engineer” is about action—about creating, building, and solving.
While scientists aim “to know” and uncover knowledge, engineers aim “to do” by putting that knowledge to use.
Engineers are doers, people of action.
They build, troubleshoot, design, redesign, work with. No wonder why there are so many fields that are considered engineering.
Engineers are problem solvers, who create. Engineers are creatives, solving problems in ways that are unique to themselves.
If you fall into that category, then you are an engineer.
So why is that not talked about? So many people never leave the domain of asking “what makes a person an engineer?” Many remain far from the proverbial table that is engineering and design. Many never get the opportunity to contribute their creative talent.
That is simply unacceptable. Therefore,
This is – A Manifesto: On [redefining] the meaning of being an engineer or technical creator.
Engineers are
creators.
problem-solvers.
humans.
teachers.
students.
curious.
with lived experiences.
ideas.
they see the problems.
a future yet to be.
ARE world-changers.
disruptors.
hopeful.
Ordinary (extraordinary) people who solve ordinary problems, every day.
If this were entirely true and accepted, then we would be living in an entirely different world than the one we live in now.
Let me lay the problems out on the table so it’s explicitly clear where we stand as an industry.
Many schools in underserved areas lack strong STEM programs or teachers qualified or well-supported in implementing these programs. This creates gaps in interest at a young age which leaves many unaware of engineering as a career path.
There’s a deeply ingrained perception that engineering is for certain “types” of people (you can use your imagination here). This discourages participation from underrepresented groups who don’t see themselves reflected in these roles.
Many students from minority backgrounds may not have role models in engineering.
Engineering programs are often highly theoretical and don’t emphasize the hands-on skills or practical, applied knowledge needed in industry, which creates a steep learning curve for marginalized students without external support; combine that with the difficulty of obtaining internships.
University engineering spaces can feel exclusionary. Elitism in makerspaces (and other spaces) discourage participation from students who already feel like outsiders and obstructs co-creation.
Schools serving marginalized communities often do not have equipment, materials or the space for creation, thus creating a skills gap.
Professional engineering societies and networking events often cater to established professionals and don’t offer entry points or mentorship opportunities for people from marginalized backgrounds. Imagine this setting from different shoes…
There’s usually a preference for graduates from prestigious schools or those with traditional career paths, and ignoring applicants who may have the skills but not the “right” background. Gaps in employment are perceived as concerns.
A lack of diversity in engineering leadership which affects all other aspects of business operations. It starts from the top.
The field requires access to costly tools, software licenses and materials (or at least those used in industry), which for students or aspiring engineers with financial strains creates a cost barrier to exploration and application.
Venture capital and other funding are typically concentrated in traditional tech hubs or prioritize founders with connections.
Marginalized engineers often report lower pay and/or fewer promotion opportunities compared to their peers.
Imposter syndrome among engineers in the field.
Many firms prioritize high-revenue projects over socially impactful work.
Harmful stereotypes in the field; a myth that diversity initiatives lower standards leads to harm.
Emerging technologies like AI, machine learning and advanced robotics are reshaping engineering. But access to education and resources in these areas is often limited, creating a digital divide that excludes underrepresented groups from cutting-edge fields.
Patent and intellectual property (IP) systems favor established companies and individuals who can afford extensive legal processes, making it difficult for independent engineers and entrepreneurs from marginalized backgrounds to protect their innovations. They are also cost-prohibitive.
Projects that aim to solve local or community issues (e.g., affordable housing, sustainable agriculture) often lack funding and resources because they don’t promise high financial returns, despite their societal value. These projects also lack participatory design from the stakeholders that matter.
Engineers from marginalized backgrounds may feel pressure to choose stable, “safe” career paths over entrepreneurial or innovative pursuits due to economic insecurity or family expectations.
The high stakes and visibility in engineering projects can be daunting, especially for those who lack confidence or feel they are representing their community in a predominantly homogenous industry.
The technical and often inaccessible language of engineering can be alienating. Those who don’t speak English as a first language, or are new to engineering terminology (first-time exposure), can feel intimidated.
Programs focused on training marginalized groups in engineering often lack long-term funding, continuity and consistency.
There is much work to be done.
Things change when we change them. It is only if WE all (or many of us) move in this direction that a new future will be written in history.
We can either confront the uncomfortable and do something about it, or ignore it.
If you are moved to move in this direction, please contact me. I want to co-create this future with you.