Abstract
There are generally three types of engineering qualification offered around the world, corresponding to the three commonly recognized engineering roles: engineer, technologist, and technician. This paper examines how the definitions and standards applied to the different engineering roles and qualifications implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) suggest a hierarchy, with engineer identified as superior to the other two roles. This hierarchical thinking undervalues the technologist and technician roles, and gives the false impression that the engineering role (and the corresponding qualification) incorporates the knowledge and abilities of the technologist, which in turn simply builds on the technician. In fact, as explored here, the roles are complementary and should be considered equally important and valuable in an engineering endeavor. A new model based on the CDIO framework is presented which highlights the superiority of each engineering role in a different aspect of an engineering process. This framework will guide the development of the corresponding qualifications in preparing students appropriately, and will hopefully help discredit the hierarchy of engineering roles.