To me, in this context, technologist would be someone who works with technology and thus consders themselves someone who approaches things from an engineering or scientific as opposed ot humanities perspective, at least professionally. It is a bit of an overly-broad, imprecise term but since we are largely dealing with a labelling issue, not how people actually think, I suspect it works well enough for the matter at hand.
That’s interesting. Just goes to show how out of the loop I am on matters such as these.
That said, if at some point you ever find yourself at a loss for something to write on and would like to explore farther the title technologist as it applies to the academic setting, I have some experience in this area.
Through my graduate studies research, I investigated how someone who has been prepared as an electronics engineering technologist in college found his- or herself hard-pressed to find a title in industry matching the academic-title profile. According to my findings, these folks filled roles as engineers, applications engineers, technicians and even technical salespersons, but very rarely if ever as technologists, at least that which is limited to the electronics engineering technologist specialization and to the western U.S. As such, this has the appearance of industry at some point (the 1960s?) approaching academia and specifically requesting that an ET curriculum be created, but never bothered to establish a commensurate spot within the labor sector, which also gives the appearance of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. And, on the basis of that alone, such could make for an interesting post.
First of all I would just like to say I appreciate being able to comment even though I am not a subscriber. Not yet, anyway, but thinking about becoming one.
Okay, so now that that is out of the way, you mentioned that you are a “technologist.” Yet, your area of study is engineering. So, I’m not sure how you define the technologist term.
I, on the other hand, studied engineering technology as an undergrad and because of this I would consider myself a technologist. But, in reality, because of my work, I would think I should be classified more along the lines of a technician.
In the academic context I am classified one way and, in the vocational context, I presume I should be classified as something else.
Thanks for commenting, Alan.
To me, in this context, technologist would be someone who works with technology and thus consders themselves someone who approaches things from an engineering or scientific as opposed ot humanities perspective, at least professionally. It is a bit of an overly-broad, imprecise term but since we are largely dealing with a labelling issue, not how people actually think, I suspect it works well enough for the matter at hand.
That’s interesting. Just goes to show how out of the loop I am on matters such as these.
That said, if at some point you ever find yourself at a loss for something to write on and would like to explore farther the title technologist as it applies to the academic setting, I have some experience in this area.
Through my graduate studies research, I investigated how someone who has been prepared as an electronics engineering technologist in college found his- or herself hard-pressed to find a title in industry matching the academic-title profile. According to my findings, these folks filled roles as engineers, applications engineers, technicians and even technical salespersons, but very rarely if ever as technologists, at least that which is limited to the electronics engineering technologist specialization and to the western U.S. As such, this has the appearance of industry at some point (the 1960s?) approaching academia and specifically requesting that an ET curriculum be created, but never bothered to establish a commensurate spot within the labor sector, which also gives the appearance of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. And, on the basis of that alone, such could make for an interesting post.
First of all I would just like to say I appreciate being able to comment even though I am not a subscriber. Not yet, anyway, but thinking about becoming one.
Okay, so now that that is out of the way, you mentioned that you are a “technologist.” Yet, your area of study is engineering. So, I’m not sure how you define the technologist term.
I, on the other hand, studied engineering technology as an undergrad and because of this I would consider myself a technologist. But, in reality, because of my work, I would think I should be classified more along the lines of a technician.
In the academic context I am classified one way and, in the vocational context, I presume I should be classified as something else.
Care to shed some light?