Protected Titles for a Protected Public
In my first year as an undergraduate engineering student, I took a required course on Professional Practice and Responsibility. The course took place in the largest lecture hall at my universtiy. Two moments remain with me. The first moment invovles the professor sidling quietly up to the microphone, leaning in closely, and saying softly: “doctors kill people one at a time”. I’m sure you can imagine how we sat up a little straighter in our seats after that opening remark. The second moment was perhaps less dramatic, but it made the stakes a little more concrete. The professor went on to explain that the profession of engineer was about assuming liability. If something goes wrong with the product of an engineer’s work, it is not the engineer’s supervisor that is responsible. Conversely, the engineer is obligated to say no to their supervisor if they are advised to do anything that contravenes their professional expertise or ethics. At hand is nothing less than the protection of the public.
The instructor went on to explain the origin of professional orders, which grew out of the guilds of a previous age. He gave the specific example of boilers in industrial-revolution England, where the sounds of steam boiler explosions would echo across London nightly. The public rightly needed protection from irresponsible practice, and so professional orders were established to restrict who could design and build these boilers. Once the controls were put in place— including penalties for illegal practice — the explosions decreased in frequency.
For a long time, software engineers had clamored to be respected as well as any of the more ‘traditional’ engineering disciplines. Their works had been considered as “not actually engineering” because they weren’t designing physical equipment. After all, engineers can have a lot of chauvinistic attitudes among and between its different disciplines: a previous colleague once joked to me that “mechanical engineers make weapons and civil engineers make targets”. This is unfortunate in the engineering profession at large; we are, as the Order of Engineers of Quebec (OIQ) puts it, “confrères et consoeurs” — brothers and sisters together in practice.
But software engineering is engineering! It follows engineering design processes and principles, and it deserves to be recognized as much as civil, electrical, mechanical, or any other engineering discipline. Most importantly, like any engineering discipline, software engineering has the ability to impact public safety — and for that reason alone, it should be subject to the guidelines laid out by various acts respecting the engineering profession (including, notably, a code of ethics).
Now, the Canadian province of Alberta will permit software engineers to use the title of “engineer” without being a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Contrast this with the OIQ, which in 2019 clarified restrictions around the use of the title in the province to further define and protect software engineering.
At hand is a coming-of-age question for the software engineering profession in general. Without a legal framework, software engineering is treated like audio engineering: it denotes a set of technical skills, and implies that there is no risk of adverse impact on public safety. I think that does software a great disservice to the profession as well as the public.
Alberta’s argument hearkens back to the unrestricted days of Victorian boiler explosions: sure, removing legal protections may contribute to economic growth in the short term — but by making this choice, the government of Alberta may be forcing the public may well be paying the price. APEGA has quite understandably decried the decision.
Software engineers are engineers, and they deserve all the recognition — and obligation — that the title confers. Software engineers should demand the honour of a protected title, and Albertans should demand the safety of restricted practice. Regulation is one of those things that can seem like a burden when it’s there, but the consequences can often be painful when oversight is absent.
As a final note, the engineering profession carries a certain prestige — and well it should, if public safety is at hand. Like doctors, engineers are charged with matters of public protection — with all the pride and liability that that charge implies. It is not responsible to want the prestige of the title but eschew its burden. As the man said, “with great power comes great responsibility”. You cannot have your cookies and eat them too.
Note: I am a licensed engineer in the province of Quebec, but this piece represents my own personal opinion as a private citizen.
