Tanya Ross on engineers and the media

Consulting engineering is a profession with an image problem. The individuals who form the backbone of any construction design team, problem-solvers and innovators responsible for some of the most spectacular and socially beneficial projects of this or any generation, are unseen, unacknowledged and unloved by the public.

Some may believe this isn’t a problem. There’s a school of thought that says if it hasn’t fallen down and killed anybody, then we’re doing our job right. But this simply reinforces the myth of shy, gauche boffins performing incomprehensible calculations in a shed somewhere, leaving our architectural colleagues to step into the limelight and take the credit whenever a new building, a new bridge or a new transport interchange is opened.

It’s a problem that has been aired in the House of Lords, no less. Speaking in a science, technology and engineering debate on June 4, Lord Howie argued for recognition of engineers’ contribution to the built environment. “Generally speaking, with the construction industry rather than engineering as a whole, when a notable building such as the Millennium Dome is discussed in the press, its design is attributed to the architect. There is a sense in which the architect is entitled to some recognition for the Dome… The real designers were not the architects, however much they put into it, but Buro Happold. It is a complete engineering structure.”

As a senior staff member at Buro Happold, this statement obviously chimes personally for me. But the principle applies whether talking about the Dome, the Eden Centre or the Millau Viaduct. In the same debate, Baroness Greenfield said that one of problems is the relationship of science with the media, referring to “…all too familiar demonisation of science and scientists, the sensationalist, oversimplified reportage of facts and the wariness and aversion many scientists have of talking to the press”.

So what are the issues here, and what can engineering professionals do to become media-savvy?

First, there’s the issue of, “What is an engineer?” It’s not a protected term, like architect or doctor, and has become accepted as the generic for any operator of a machine, applying equally to an unskilled labourer or a nuclear physicist. We could labour the difference between the use of engines and the design of engines, but I suspect that this is a battle long since lost.

We know what a doctor does, a policeman and a lawyer – think of all the TV programmes about those professions – but most of the public have no idea what a building services engineer does

Second, there’s the “Arts v Science” debate. Ted Happold, one of the founders of Buro Happold, said: “Technology… has been seen as a dehumanising force to be resisted. Art has been seen as a civilising counter-balance to these advances… a world that sees art and engineering as divided is not seeing the world as a whole.” He was right, but the fact remains that science and engineering is seen as practical, functional, even prosaic, whereas art and architecture is creative, inspirational, exciting.

I know I’m not alone when I admit that occasionally I have introduced myself at parties as an “architectural engineer” – a rather pathetic attempt at borrowing some glamour from my architectural colleagues.

Third, there’s the challenge of making what we do interesting to the modern print and visual media. Design and construction are a long-term endeavour, working over a span of months or years to deliver structures that will last for decades and even centuries. The media, however, operates on deadlines of hours, and is interested in the here-and-now rather than a better tomorrow.

Readers/listeners/viewers are much more likely to engage with something that’s relevant to their own experiences (we are all essentially selfish, concerned with how the world revolves around us). So we know what a doctor does, a policeman and a lawyer – think of all the television programmes about those three professions – but most of us have no idea what a building services engineer does.

Finally, we need to ask: do engineers want to engage with the media? Since we don’t win our work from the general public, perhaps there’s no need to woo them. Our customers are the architects that recommend us to their clients or, increasingly, contractors seeking to engage designers in a joint venture. Perhaps it’s only these companies that should be the target of our self-promotion efforts. And, anyway, we’re reticent types, happy to let others be the trumpet-blowers.

Mark Whitby, chairman of Ramboll UK, describes engineers as session musicians to the architectural pop stars, quietly doing their thing and earning their fees. I think he’s right, as we recognise that we’re part of a large team and it’s only the capabilities of the whole that allow a brilliant performance (bridges are perhaps our “instrumental breaks”, providing an opportunity to step into the limelight).

Many of us want time to work out the answer to three decimal places. Modern media don’t work like this – we need to be prepared to generalise, and above all to produce a soundbite

There is a tremendous temptation for the engineering profession collectively to wring its hands, bemoaning the lack of coverage and credit given, grumbling that nobody understands what we do. Wailing among ourselves isn’t going to change the situation. Any commercial organisation, faced with a product languishing in the public’s perception as “useful but not exciting”, would appoint an advertising agency to come up with a treatment to relaunch it as a must-have, whether toilet roll, wood preservative or floor cleaner. I’m not advocating a saturation advertising campaign – apart from anything else, we can’t afford it – but there are a couple of things that we could, and should, do.

Most importantly, we need to be willing to “stand up and be counted” – be prepared to be called upon at short notice to give an engineering viewpoint on unfolding newsworthy events. This will require confident, articulate engineers, unafraid of a camera and capable of explaining the complex interactions of engineering installations to the lay person. Many of us are reluctant to respond to ad-hoc demands for answers – we’d like some time to go away and work out what is, to three decimal places, the right solution. Modern media don’t work like this; we need to be prepared to generalise, to comment upon things outside our specialist field, and above all we need to be able to produce a soundbite.

In a more general context, we need to keep promoting the idea of engineers as shapers of the urban landscape, as solvers of some of the problems posed by climate change. We’re clever, vital people who can help to save the planet, not a collection of wrench-wielding cowboys. Sure, it’s an enormous task, but it’s one we should relish. All engineers would benefit from increased public awareness. Whether it is not having to explain to your grandmother what exactly you do for a living or being considered suitable matrimonial material, even a modicum of greater awareness could mean improved recognition.

I’m prepared to volunteer my services as an engineering commentator – I had some experience while involved with the Dome (including four somewhat nerve-wracking minutes on breakfast TV and six minutes on Radio 1) and I’m not afraid to make an exhibition of myself. But there are dozens of capable, articulate engineers in this business – come on down and get in front of the cameras and the microphones. We are real people in this industry, doing valuable work that contributes to the financial well-being and visual environment of the country. If we want to be recognised as such, we must be prepared to be more visible, to step out of the shadows and tell the public what we do, unashamed, unabashed and uninhibited.

Tanya Ross is group director at Buro Happold