The knowledge modality of specialisation

Chapter four dealt with the data analysis around the modality of specialisation as a principal knowledge modality. Three immediate observations come to mind: firstly, the data presented was more voluminous than was the case for the data presented in the other principal

modalities. Secondly, the thermodynamics knowledge themes in data units described in chapter four are shared across all the disciplinary areas, and, with one exception (enthalpy), were of a meta-theoretical nature: the meaning attached to the term ‘thermodynamics’, the overall approach to the topic followed by textbook authors, the way systems and devices are conceptualised in the textbooks, the formulation of the First Law and the sign convention associated with this, and the use of codified or condensed knowledge across the disciplinary areas. Furthermore, specialisation is the knowledge modality that refers most directly to the fundamental concerns of the disciplinary fields: for the sciences the descriptions and

explanations of phenomena, and for the engineering sciences the interventions that modify and change the human world according to a need. The modes that operationalise the specialisation modality are specialisation towards universals, expressing the intention to explain across phenomena, and specialisation towards particulars at the other end, progressing beyond

abstract notions to the specifics required in a particular situation. The implication of these three observations is a possibility that the specialisation modality may be of a different order from the other two modalities (idealisation and normativity). This is elaborated upon in 7.5.1 below where the relationships between modalities are considered. However, treating specialisation as an independent equal modality at the initial stage of the analysis, made methodological sense, and allowed for cognitive gain by providing more options for coding of the richly textured data. For much of the data, the coding confirmed the links to the fundamental disciplinary concerns as envisaged in the design of the analysis instrument: the physics and chemistry data in all cases specialised towards universals. This is in line with the sciences’ fundamental concern for explanation (see Figure 3-1). Even when the chemistry textbook followed the classical

macroscopic approach to thermodynamics (similar to both engineering sciences), microscopic atomic explanations were constantly called upon to explain macroscopic thermodynamic properties. Whereas the engineering science data mostly specialised towards particulars, there were some exceptions. It is perhaps not unexpected that mechanical engineering would display some specialisation to universals in the formulation of the First Law of thermodynamics; it is after all a general statement of a fundamental natural law. In spite of this, the distinct sign convention adopted in the mechanical engineering textbook under consideration (possibly signalling the engineering concern for the work output of devices, as suggested in 4.6.1), and the

175 strong emphasis on its application in devices, meant that the categorising of this data unit was coded as still strongly specialised towards particulars.

The chemical engineering text presented some knowledge related to engineering devices. However, there was less that could be coded as “particulars” in the formulation of the First Law. Also, the use of a markedly general formulation of the First Law consisting of the summation of terms that cover a wide range of physical systems confirmed the coding of the chemical

engineering data as predominantly specialised towards universals in this case. Furthermore, the chemical engineering textbook knowledge often relied on referencing microscopic detail in spite of the broadly macroscopic approach to thermodynamics. This is one Important difference between the two engineering science disciplines under consideration, and can probably be attributed to the nature of the basic science (chemistry) that chemical engineering

fundamentally draws from: the prominence of the atomic model to explain chemical reactions finds its way into the chemical engineering science more markedly than was the case for the mechanical engineering text.

As discussed in the methodology chapter (in 3.4.4), the modalities are conceived of as continua rather than dipoles. Keeping this in mind, it then becomes possible to conceptualise the

disciplinary fields along a specialisation continuum.

Figure 7-1 illustrates a few important ideas. Firstly, it is clear that there is a difference in the way the sciences and the engineering sciences specialise: the data from the thermodynamics textbooks confirms that the science knowledge specialises towards more universal, general ideas that would align with the theory-committed orientation of knowledge suggested in the theoretical framework (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). This supports the fundamental value of the science disciplines to describe and explain phenomena across many instances. Knowledge in the

engineering sciences, on the other hand, specialises towards particulars, in keeping with the specifics demanded by the task- or problem orientation of knowledge in engineering.

PHY CEng

CHE MEng

176 Secondly, there are differences in the way the disciplines specialise: Figure 7-1 suggests that the mechanical engineering (MEng) knowledge specialises to a larger degree towards particulars than chemical engineering science (CEng) knowledge.

The importance of engineering devices like compressors, nozzles, turbines, refrigerators, water heaters, pumps, throttling devices in the engineering science textbooks is a important difference between the science and engineering texts27_{. Devices were largely absent from the three science}

texts, or else were dealt with in a cursory manner. Similarly, although all textbooks used codified knowledge in the form of fundamental physical constants, the absence of the codified procedural knowledge in property tables, and Mollier and phase diagrams was striking in the science textbooks (there was a brief acknowledgement of the existence of property tables in the third year physics text, but no procedural attention given to it). The thermodynamic property tables and Mollier diagrams in the engineering texts are detailed empirical data highly valued in the engineering science for the comprehensive knowledge of macro properties given under different operational conditions. The prominence of the engineering devices and the condensed procedural knowledge in the tables and graphs are important references to what Bernstein called the field of practice of the engineering sciences, and they provide empirical evidence for an important orientation towards the field of practice for the technical professional knowledge. I return to this observation later in the chapter (see 7.6).