3.4 EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTION

3.4.1 Areas of expertise required at work

Language skills form the most significant area of expertise

The questionnaire study participants were enquired as to the expertise they needed in their current job, mentioning 16 different areas of expertise. They were asked to estimate the significance of these areas of expertise for their work with the scale of one to five (1 - no significance, 5 - very significant). Figure 19 presents the average of the answers for each area of expertise. In total, 204 different persons had given answers to different areas of expertise, in such a manner, however, that the number of responses in different areas of expertise was at its lowest 201 (research) and at its highest 204 (language, written communication, oral communication and negotiation skills).

The most significant areas of expertise in the respondents’ current work were invariably related to language skills, project work and teamwork, use of data processing systems and written and oral communication skills. These answers involved the smallest variations, and with regard to each of these, the answers concentrated on ‘significant’ and ‘very significant’. The number of answers falling in the two lowest categories, ‘no significance’ or ‘a little’, was less than seven in respect of each of these areas of expertise. The highest variations in the responses could be found in the areas of research as well as sales and marketing expertise. A distinct dichotomy was particularly pronounced in the area of research expertise: a large proportion of the respondents (29%) deemed it as very significant for their current work, but conversely, an equally large proportion (28%) regarded it to be of a little or no significance. As regards sales and marketing, the distribution of responses between different categories was the most equal of all the areas of expertise. The largest number of answers in the category ‘to some extent’ (73) was in teaching skills, where responses generally concentrated on alternatives two to four (85%). Occupational safety as well as industrial design were the areas receiving an overwhelming majority of ‘no significance’ answers.

When comparing the significance of the areas of expertise for the current job with regard to those graduated in the 1980’s and 1990’s, respectively, the differences in the average significance of the areas of expertise were in the majority of cases relatively small. A distinct exception was made by personnel administration, financial administration, sales and marketing, occupational safety, and industrial design, whose average significance in the current job was considerably greater - the difference between averages was more than 1.5 - for those graduated in the 1980’s when compared to those graduated in the 1990’s. Such a large difference in the significance of these areas of expertise can probably be attributed to the fact that the respondents who have been engaged in working life for a longer period are probably employed in administrative, managerial or marketing positions to a larger extent. The only area of expertise which was regarded as slightly more significant by those graduated in the present decade when compared to those graduated in the last decade was production planning and management (difference between averages 0.4).

Figure 19. Significance of the areas of expertise required in the current job.

3.4.2 Capabilities provided by the Master of Science in Engineering education for the areas of expertise

More project and teamwork desired

The questionnaire also enquired as to the capabilities provided by the Master of Science in Engineering education for the areas of expertise mentioned above (Figure 20). For this question, the evaluation scale was extended by one more alternative (6 - don’t know), enabling the respondents to ignore such areas of expertise for which they did not have experience or knowledge in respect of the M.Sc. education.

A total of 204 different persons had answered this question. The alternative ‘don’t know’ (6) has not been included in the calculation of averages. The total number of answers in different areas of expertise was at its highest 199 (oral communication skills) and at its lowest 173 (industrial design).

According to the respondents, the education had succeeded best in providing capabilities for the areas of expertise concerning research, use of data processing systems, product development and design, language skills and written communication skills. The overwhelming majority of answers concentrating on the two highest categories concerned the areas of expertise in research and use of data processing systems. Examined in terms of averages, education in the areas of expertise was regarded as most deficient in respect of industrial design and personnel administration, which also contained the distinctly largest number of answers in the two lowest categories. The variation of the answers was almost precisely at the level of one category (1.0) in all areas of expertise, with the exception of industrial design, where it was 0.7.

Figure 20. Capabilities provided by the Master of Science in Engineering education for different areas of expertise. The order of the areas is identical to Figure 19.

When comparing the capabilities provided by the education between those graduated in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the latter had generally evaluated the capabilities provided by the education to be better than had the former. A particularly clear difference could be detected in the areas of expertise in project work and teamwork, for which the averages of answers given by those graduated in the 1990’s were almost one category higher (0.8). Also the averages of production planning and management, sales and marketing, and financial administration were more than half a category better in the answers of those graduated in this decade when compared to those graduated in the previous decade. The only areas of expertise where those graduated in the 1990’s evaluated on average that their education had corresponded with their current job worse were product development and design and research.

Among the respondents who had submitted their Master’s thesis to Ragnar Granit Institute, the average estimates concerning the capabilities provided by the education for the areas of expertise were very similar to those of the entire research population. In respect of the areas of expertise in financial administration, personnel administration, and sales and marketing, the averages were slightly lower (0.2) than the overall average, whereas with regard to research, their average evaluation was slightly above the overall average.

When making conclusions concerning the details presented above, it should be born in mind that although it was possible to use the alternative ‘don’t know’ when the respondent had not attended courses involving the area of expertise in question, this possibility was utilized by surprisingly few respondents. This undoubtedly has a bearing on the areas evaluated as the poorest, as the respondents, feeling their knowledge and skills to be inadequate in respect of these, might have evaluated the education according to their own feelings.

The correspondence between the education and the significance of the areas of expertise required at work has been examined by subtracting the evaluations (numerical values) of the significance of each area of expertise for the current job given by the respondents from the questionnaire point concerning the capabilities provided by the M.Sc. education. The resulting remainders have been used to determine averages for each area of expertise in the entire research population (Figure 21). When the numerical value resulting from the subtraction is positive, the capabilities provided by the M.Sc. education can be deemed to be better in the area of expertise in question than what the current job description requires. Similarly, when it is negative, it indicates that the capabilities obtained from the education are inadequate for the area of expertise when compared to the requirements of work. Remainders have not been calculated for those areas of expertise for which the respondent has answered ‘don’t know’ when asked of the capabilities provided by the education. The comparison shows that on average the respondents had estimated the capabilities provided by the M.Sc. education to fall short of the requirements of their current job. The most considerable deficiencies appeared to occur in project and teamwork, as well as in oral communication and negotiation skills. Of the capabilities in the areas of expertise provided by the M.Sc. education, only research and occupational safety were on average regarded by the respondents to be slightly oversized in respect of their current job.

When comparing the correspondence of education with work by area of expertise between those graduated in the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was generally discernible that those graduated in the present decade regarded the capabilities provided by their education for the areas of expertise required in their current job to be better than those graduated in the last decade. The capabilities provided by the education were clearly regarded to be better (more than one point’s difference in averages) by those graduated in the present decade in respect of the areas of expertise in sales and marketing, personnel administration, financial administration and teamwork. Conversely, with regard of the areas of expertise in product development and design and research, those graduated in the 1980’s deemed the capabilities provided by the M.Sc. education to be better than those graduated in the present decade. The latter perceived that the most severe deficiencies in the capabilities provided by the education were in the areas of expertise in project work, oral communication skills, negotiation skills and teamwork (the average remainder more than -1). Moreover, the areas of expertise in language skills, written communication skills, and product development and design were also deemed to be inadequate by those graduated in the 1990’s (the average remainder more than -0.5). Among the respondents who had submitted their Master’s thesis to Ragnar Granit Institute, the average remainders by area of expertise were precisely the same when compared to the entire research population.

3.4.3 Fields of science and technology required at work

Digital and Computer Technology and Software Engineering the most important fields of technology

In addition to the areas of expertise, the respondents estimated the significance and necessity of various fields of science and technology for their current job (Figure 22). The fields of science and technology included in the questionnaire had primarily been selected on the basis of the professional subjects included by the respondents in their Master’s degree programme. A total of 203 persons had given answers to this question. The highest total number of answers in different points was 203 (Digital and Computer Technology) and the lowest amounted to 197 (Medicine). Thirteen persons had added fields of science and technology required in their work other than those included in the questionnaire. However, these are not mentioned in Figure 22 due to the small number of answers. The most significant of these were Statistics (mentioned in four responses) and Law (mentioned in two responses). The number of answers concerning other fields of science and technology was only one each.

On average, the most significant fields of science and technology in the respondents’ estimates were Digital and Computer Technology and Software Engineering. Not only was their significance manifest on the basis of averages, but also by the fact that the number of answers in categories ‘no significance’ and ‘a little’ was clearly the smallest in both of these fields of technology. In addition to these fields, the largest number of answers in the two highest categories were given to Telecommunication Technology, Electronics, Signal Processing and Measurement and Information Technology. On the basis of the result, it can be stated that on average the respondents had already in their student years succeeded extremely well in finding the fields of their preference, since the above-mentioned fields of technology had also been the most popular major or minor professional subjects of those selected for this study (Table 1). Conversely, the field clearly regarded as the least significant for the current job was Energy and Process Engineering. Only six respondents had estimated this field as either significant or very significant for their current job. Moreover, the significance of Machine Design, Environmental Engineering, Power Electronics, Occupational Safety Engineering, Materials Engineering and Chemistry had been estimated to be quite modest in respect of the current job. The largest variations were clearly in the fields of Biomedical Engineering and Medicine, which were regarded to be either of no significance or very significant for the current job. Furthermore, a relatively large variation was also found in the significance of Telecommunication Technology and Signal Processing. Variations were clearly the smallest in Energy and Process Engineering. Distribution of responses by category for each field of science and technology is presented in Appendix 4.

Differences in the average necessity of the fields of science and technology required at work between those graduated in the 1980’s and 1990’s were in general extremely small. Noteworthy differences (difference between averages more than 0.4) could be observed in Environmental and Occupational Safety Engineering and Mathematics. Those graduated in the 1980’s stated that they needed Environmental and Occupational Safety Engineering on average more often than did those graduated in the 1990’s. Conversely, the situation with Mathematics is reverse.

The respondents who had submitted their Master’s thesis to Ragnar Granit Institute estimated that they needed Medicine and Biomedical Engineering in their current job to a clearly larger extent than the other respondents. In respect of other fields of science and technology, the needs were on average the same when compared to the entire research population.

In addition to the above, the significance of various fields of science and technology in the current job was examined with regard to those respondents who, when asked as to the relation of the nature of their job description in their current job to Biomedical Engineering, had chosen the alternative ‘fully’ or ‘almost fully’ (Appendix 5). Naturally, the significance of Biomedical Engineering was clearly emphasized in this group, and almost all of these respondents had estimated it as very significant. The field of science and technology that stood out as particularly significant here was Medicine. In this group, the significance of Measurement and Information Technology, Physics and Chemistry in the current job increased distinctly when compared to the entire research population. Conversely, the average significance of Telecommunication Technology clearly diminished when compared to the average of the entire research population. In addition to Biomedical Engineering and Medicine, the most significant fields of science and technology included Digital and Computer Technology, Software Engineering, Electronics, Signal Processing, and Measurement and Information Technology.

3.4.4 Postgraduate degrees in technology

Every sixth has completed a postgraduate degree in technology

The question concerning the completed postgraduate degrees was the only point in the questionnaire to which all the respondents had answered (n = 206). Of the respondents, 17% (34 persons) had completed a postgraduate degree in technology. Those who had completed the Licentiate degree and Doctor’s degree accounted for 16% (32 persons) and 7% (14 persons), respectively. Chapter 2 provides more detailed totals of persons who have completed a postgraduate degree in Biomedical Engineering and those who have included Biomedical Engineering studies in their postgraduate degree programme, based on the TUT archive. The smaller figures in Chapter 2 are due to the fact that the figures only include the number of students who have included Biomedical Engineering in their postgraduate degree programme. Conversely, the questionnaire study involved all persons who had included Biomedical Engineering either in their Master of Science in Engineering degree or in their postgraduate degree. Therefore, the questionnaire study may have included respondents who had completed their postgraduate degree in some other university of technology, on the one hand, and respondents who had only completed the postgraduate degree in Biomedical Engineering, on the other.

Quite expectedly, the majority (70%) of all the persons who had completed a postgraduate degree had taken their first degree prior to the year 1990. Of those who had got their Masters of Science in Engineering degree in the last decade, 30% had completed a postgraduate degree, whereas the corresponding proportion for those graduated in this decade was as modest as 8%.

Among those who had submitted their Master’s thesis to Ragnar Granit Institute, 23% (18 persons) had completed a postgraduate degree in the field of technology. With the exception of three persons, all had also taken their degree at Ragnar Granit Institute. The total volumes of postgraduate degrees completed at the Institute are presented in Chapter 2.1, and the titles and authors of Licentiate and Doctoral theses can be found in Appendix 7.

When enquiring the respondents’ intention to take a postgraduate degree, the majority of the respondents stated that they regarded it as possible (Figure 23). The respondents stating that they were certainly or possibly going to take a postgraduate degree accounted for 27% and 46%, respectively. The postgraduate degree programme had been named by 19 persons of those respondents who had answered ‘yes’. In addition to blank answers, the responses of those persons who had stated that they had completed a Doctor’s degree had been omitted from the calculation of this question.

Naturally, the majority (87%) of the respondents aiming at a postgraduate degree had graduated in the 1990’s. Of all those graduated in the present decade, 35% stated that they intended to take a postgraduate degree, whereas the corresponding proportion for those graduated in the 1980’s was 8%. Similarly, the majority (70%) of those who regarded taking a postgraduate degree to be possible had graduated in the 1990’s. The difference in the proportions of those who regarded taking a postgraduate degree as possible between all the respondents graduated in the 1980’s and 1990’s was surprisingly small. A postgraduate degree was deemed as possible by 47% of those graduated in the present decade and 41% of those graduated in the last decade. Of the persons who had submitted their Master’s thesis to Ragnar Granit Institute, 22% (17 persons) stated that they intended to take a postgraduate degree, whereas 41% regarded it as possible.

Figure 23. Intention of taking a postgraduate degree (n = 191).

3.4.5 Other degrees

Other degrees are rare

In addition to the Master of Science in Engineering degree, 6% (12 persons) of the respondents had also completed other degrees. No single other degree was represented more often than the others, but one half of the other degrees were related to marketing and commercial education.

3.4.6 Verbal feedback

Education provided by the Institute deemed to be good, interesting and distinguished

At the end of the questionnaire, there was a free-form section, enquiring the respondents’ opinions on the usefulness of the education provided by Ragnar Granit Institute and on the Biomedical Engineering education in general. Moreover, the respondents were provided with the possibility to give comments, critique and other feedback to the Institute in the free comments section. Feedback had been provided by 84% of the respondents in these free-form questions.

The education provided by Ragnar Granit Institute was perceived by the respondents as an interesting, good and distinguished basis, also applicable to fields other than Biomedical Engineering. Furthermore, the education was regarded as providing a very good general knowledge base and good capabilities for conducting and leading interdisciplinary projects. The interdisciplinary nature of the Institute’s education and the related multidisciplinary method of thinking were particularly emphasized in several answers. The education was perceived to provide students with excellent capabilities to function as interpreters between the technological and medical professions. Theoretical instruction was regarded as extremely laudable. The degree programme was perceived to give excellent capabilities for engaging in research and scientific thinking in particular, and for functioning in the international academic community. The Institute’s international nature, English-language instruction and accustoming students to using the English language in their reports and presentations was generally regarded as positive. Quite a number of the answers accentuated the fact that it is never possible to overemphasize internationality, especially in this field. The respondents who worked in the field of Biomedical Engineering in particular underlined the usefulness of their education.

The image of the Institute both as a studying and working environment was regarded by the respondents as positive. Several respondents regretted that they only had noticed the degree programme/the Institute at the final stage of their studies. Indeed, some respondents stated that this was the direct reason why they had not completed Biomedical Engineering as their long professional subject.

Too modest investment in project and teamwork by both the Master of Science in Engineering and the Biomedical Engineering education was regarded as a deficiency. This viewpoint was particularly emphasized in the answers of those graduated in the 1980’s. The capabilities provided by the education for working for business life were regarded as quite limited. According to the respondents, the planning of the course of study and the degree programmes and the counselling of students should place more emphasis on the areas of expertise in marketing, project management and planning, as well as result evaluation. They desired that more expertise in Software Engineering be included in the course of study in Biomedical Engineering. More medical courses were desired to the course of study in Biomedical Engineering, or the possibility to attend more freely and easily courses provided by the Faculty of Medicine at UTA. Although the Institute’s theoretical instruction was praised, a more practical approach in the instruction was also called for; on the other hand, quite a number of answers pointed out that it is finally the work that will teach the practical skills. Indeed, one respondent had crystallized the objectives of the instruction provided by a university as follows: ‘The purpose of a university is to provide, not education preparing for a certain profession, but the capabilities for acquiring and applying new knowledge and subsequently for working in a diverse range of duties.’

The Institute was criticized for emphasizing its instruction on the sub-fields of Biomedical Engineering related to its research and, consequently, a broader examination of problems concerning physiological measurements and of the entire field of Biomedical Engineering was called for. It was, however, understood that each department concentrates its research on a certain area, which is naturally in part manifest in instruction. The respondents desired that more attention be given to the quality and diversity of instruction. They wished that it would better follow the developments in the field and include more cooperation with the industrial sector. They also desired that more attention be given to student counselling, particularly at the Master’s thesis stage. Moreover, the respondents wished that more students be permitted at an earlier stage to work in and acquaint themselves with the Institute’s projects.

Although the English-language environment was generally perceived as a positive aspect, teachers’ poor command of English was criticized particularly at the beginning of the English-language instruction, and it was deemed to have partially diminished the level of instruction. Some of those graduated in the 1990’s, particularly those who had studied Electronics and Signal Processing, regarded the study credits given for certain courses to be oversized in relation to their requirements. However, the responses also showed understanding as to the fact that in such an interdisciplinary field it is very difficult to design the courses so as to meet the knowledge levels of students coming from several different fields of technology.

The lack of cooperation with the industrial sector was perceived as a weakness in the Institute’s operation. Contacts with the companies of the field and a better consideration of the labour needs of the industry operating in the field were regarded to be essential. Increasing the number of research and cooperation projects with hospitals and technology centres was deemed to be of utmost importance, but on the other hand, cooperation within TUT was also considered important. Consequently, the future challenge was stated to be the creation of better cooperation networks between various areas of expertise and fields of science.

As a whole, the Biomedical Engineering education was perceived as necessary both for the industrial sector and for the development of Medicine. The provision of education was regarded to be reasonably extensive and of considerably high quality. Some of those graduated in the 1990’s expressed their concern for there being too many students in the field for the limited labour market. Some respondents in turn offered suggestions for improving the Biomedical Engineering education. Quite a number of these suggestions proposed that the education be directed towards medical information technology in an increasing extent in the future. Indeed, the Institute has already for some years now concretely invested in this direction, and Medical Information Technology has been included in the degree programme as part of the advanced studies.

All in all, Biomedical Engineering was perceived as an extremely interesting and inspiring field. It was anticipated to become quite a significant branch of industry, and in the respondents’ opinion, an increasing amount of resources should be invested to educate specialists for the field.