If engineering psychology has yet to aehieve full acceptance and recognition, it is not because of its "interdisciplinary" tendencies or its failure to show a satisfactory record of achievement. It is this last facet of the hybridization that seems to have caused the most trouble, within as well as outside the field. What really sets it apart, however, is its desire to accommodate the objectives of science and application under one roof. Its concepts and theories also reflect the influence of both man-oriented and machine-oriented disciplines. Its language includes terms from the behavioral and physical sciences, engineering, and especially the universal language of mathematics. Moreover, it is a hybrid of a very complex sort as the above sample of related specialties clearly implies. Engineering psychology, of course, is such a hybrid.
At the very least, it can expect to be grossly misunderstood in consequence, it must work doubly hard to make its position clear with regard to goals, methods, and subjeer matter. Any hybrid is viewed with some skepticism, particularly by specialties to which it is most closely akin, until it is able to win recognition through the uncontravertable evidence of performance. It is one thing, however, for recognized disciplines to cooperate in studying some set of phenomena, and quite another for a new, hybrid discipline to set itself up specifically for that purpose. Science, after all, is supposed to be one big, happy family, working together to solve the mysteries of the universe the more cohesive its a£taek, the more complete should be the understanding achieved. Now in theory, it is very healthy for different specialties to become interested in the same problems. Obviously, the man-machine system coneept has had wide appeal. Looking to the future, newer specialties, such as computer and information sciences, can also be seen gaining a foothold. Other branches of psychology (especially experimental, industrial, and social), anthropometry, physiology, and several branches of engineering have shared various parts of it with him and with each other.
Although he has been in this area for better than 20 years, the engineering psychologist has by no means had it all to himself.
His concern, therefore, is in man-machine system behavior. He usually defines it in terms of the proposition that man and machine should be regarded, for both scientific and technological purposes, as functionally integrated parts of a larger goal-oriented unit known as the man-machine system.
#Ivory tower free download professional
1A recent paper by Grether (1968) summarizes the activities of professional engineering psychologists today its emphasis, however, is upon facts and figures rather than evaluation and projection. We can best begin to understand this problem by surveying the general territory in which the engineering psychologist has established residence. Since we feel that the shape of engineering psychology for years to come m a y well depend upon how this problem is resolved, it becomes the central concern of the present paper. We believe that there is a good reason for this unfortunate state of affairs, and more important, that the fundamental difficulty extends well beyond the mere issue of recognition. To most other members of the scientific community, including a distressing number of psychologists, it remains something of an enigma. I n spite of repeated efforts by its leaders to make explicit its goals, methods, and subject matter (see, for example, Christensen, 1964 Fit, s, 1963 Melton & Briggs, 1960 Poulton, 1966 Taylor, 1957), engineering psychology has failed to. In so doing, we shall draw equally upon "definitive" statements offered by others at various points in the area's history, and upon our interpretation and evaluation of recent trends in research. Our purpose is chiefly to examine the position that engineering psychology currently enjoys in the science of psychology, and to extrapolate any detectable trends into the immediate future. We offer, in the following pages, what amounts to a short supplement to the many comprehensive reviews which have appeared before. GOLDSTEIN University o] Maryland Several years have passed since the field of engineering psychology last underwent a thoroughgoing self-analysis (Christensen, i964 Fitts, 1963 Taylor, 1963).1 Considering its relative youth, and the dynamic age in which it is trying to make good, a brief "status report" seems in order at this time. ORGANIZATIO/gAL REI-~AVIOR AND /-IU1VIA!R* PERFORMANCE 5~ 159-169Įngineering Psychology Today: Some Observations from the Ivory Tower WILLIAM C.
0 kommentar(er)
