Communication has long been considered a core professional skill and one clearly central to global engineering practice. In Sales’ (2006) survey of U.K. engineers, more than 50% of her respondents spent more than 40% of their time on writing. In Australia, surveys by Male, Bush, and Chapman consistently identify communication as a critical (and deficient) quality in engineering graduates (Male, Bush, & Chapman, 2010, 2011). Surveys by Tenopir and King (2004) and Covington, Barksdale, Egan-Warren, Larsen, and Trunzo (2007) found that U.S. engineers spent upwards of 30% of their time writing and speaking, while Kreth's (2000) survey of U.S. graduates indicated that new engineers spent, on average, 38% of their time writing. In non–English-speaking regions and countries, the prevalence of English for Special Purposes (ESP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and second language (L2, sometimes referred to as English as a Foreign Language, or EFL) instruction for engineers attests to the ongoing need for communication competency in English as well as in engineers’ native languages (e.g., Cismas, 2010; Orr et al., 1995).
Beyond its ubiquity in practice, engineering communication can profoundly affect both the development and the impact of technology. Most dramatically, as studies of the U.S. space shuttle Challenger explosion and the near-meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear facility demonstrate, failures in engineering communication are often central factors in engineering disasters (e.g., Dombrowski, 1992; Herndl, Fennell, & Miller, 1991; Winsor, 1988). Even a failure to appropriately identify units of measure can cost millions, as in the case of the NASA orbiter developed by Lockheed Martin (Isbell, Hardin, & Underwood, 1999). Effective communication in engineering environments, such cases remind us, can have exceptionally high stakes.