WHY TEACH HISTORY?

INTRODUCTION

History is not a subject found among Construction curricula at very many universities. If you were to ask most students, history would not be among those courses they would most like to take. Yet, in the fast-changing business and political environments of today, some historical sense of the present shape and form of the construction industry, as we know it in the United States today, is important. Without a sense of history, we run the risk of training graduates to be competent only as technicians in an industry that will need competent managers.

For nearly twenty years, the University of Washington has included one required History of Building Construction course in its curriculum. This paper outlines the case for including some survey of history in the Construction curriculum and traces the development of the History course at Washington. Experience in teaching this course has led to some insights into teaching methods that are appropriate to Construction curricula, as well as some thoughts on useful qualifications for course instructors.

The author recognizes that not all Construction programs are focused the same as at the University of Washington. Some programs may concentrate on heavy construction where our focus is on building construction. Still others may be focused on the engineering and construction techniques essential to the project manager, while ours attempts to balance those skills with business skills required to manage a construction company.

However, it is the premise of this paper that, regardless of a program's focus, a course in the history of the construction industry is important to include within the curriculum

WHY TEACH THE HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION?

In the face of faculty indifference, or even outright opposition, to including history in the construction curriculum, what makes the experience at the University of Washington worth presenting? A short and easy answer lies in the number of students who indicate some version of "I hated the idea of history, but it was a good course and I am glad I had to take it." For the teacher, there are few greater rewards. However, there are other, more academically based, reasons for including history in the curriculum.

A case for including history within the curriculum

There are two main branches to the argument for including history within the undergraduate construction curriculum. Each is rooted in our mission of preparing graduates to become effective in the construction industry. This is not to dismiss or ignore valid arguments for broadening undergraduate liberal arts education in general, which the author accepts and supports. Rather it is to focus this paper more narrowly on the field of construction education.

The need to broaden understanding of the industry

If we are educating graduates to eventually assume management responsibility for construction companies, it is important for them to understand the forces that impact the industry. For instance, the rather dramatic shift away from "hard money" public bids toward "cost plus" negotiation as a means for procuring construction services has caught some construction fines without skills to effectively compete. The possibility exists that increased public works spending in the near future may swing momentum back to bid jobs. Yet these changes have strong historical antecedents.

Starting in the 1830s with the rise of private, speculative, commercial builders in the United States, it was common for construction work to be negotiated. Moreover, construction work was often negotiated at a point in the process when architect's and engineer's design work was not complete. It is, at least, likely during a period of time when similar forces have dominated our industry, i.e. strong private, speculative, commercial developer/clients, that similar responses from contractors would be demanded. Yet those managers with only a sense of the immediate past might assume that bidding is the only way of the future and, consequently, fail to adjust their companies to respond to the new realities of the business environment.

There is no guarantee that, just because a manager of a construction company had taken an undergraduate history course, he or she would necessarily have been able to foresee these changes in how construction services are procured. However, if such an undergraduate history course had been a part of their education and, equally important, had that course focused on this type of historical sequence, such a manager would, at the very least, be in a better position to anticipate changes in a timely manner.

To draw a second example, the current growth in "open shop" versus "union shop" construction is probably partly a return to the historical model for organizing labor on the construction site. Here there seem to be two strong themes throughout history that are coming together today.

One is the almost unbroken tendency towards specialization of labor over the past 3,000 to 5,000 years. Starting with the early specialization of miners in northern Mesopotamia around 8000 BC, through the professional construction managers of the Egyptians, to the common use of engineers by the Romans, there were increasingly specialized crafts and labor on the construction site. With the advent of freemasons for the building of Gothic cathedrals, craft specialization took on a political and economic dimension. The culmination of this labor specialization might be considered the modern craft or trade union, the A.F. of L.

However, the second historical theme is the organizational framework within which material and labor have been managed on the construction site. For a variety of economic and political reasons, the overwhelming tendency has been toward strong, centralized management control In fact, until the 1930s in the United States, the tendency was to have all crafts and trades working as employees of one general contracting company resulting in high, fixed overhead for labor and equipment.

During the world depression, a lack of steady clients resulted in massive layoffs of skilled tradesmen. These skilled tradesmen, in turn, realized that they could subcontract their services on a more flexible and lower overhead basis and compete for what little work was available. However, not until after World War II, when low cost and fast reproduction of contract drawings became available, was it possible for independent subcontractors to emerge as we them know today.

The disadvantage of the independent subcontractor form of labor organization is the difficulty in job site management control. For all of our efficiency and productivity gains over the past 50 years, we still cannot complete major construction projects in a time frame that matches those of the early 1900s. In an era of high real costs of capital, time is money. It is quite possible that the value of future contractor's services to the developer/client may lie at least as much in the management of time as in managing actual construction techniques.

It is interesting to speculate on what the future development of the "open shop" movement might be. Whether it turns out to be only an attempt to control costs, or whether it focuses on the broader, and more historical, issues of job site management control on the job site is unclear. However, it is important to recognize that the particular form of construction management typical of the industry in the United States is quite unique, both internationally and historically.

Therefore, it is valuable to place modern construction within the context of historical events familiar to most educated persons. It is equally important to understand the time frame within which the industry, as we know it today, has emerged. A construction history course can give students such an awareness.

The need to broaden and sharpen student skills

A second set of arguments in favor of a history course lies in a recognition of the skills required of competent managers of construction activities and companies. Perhaps chief among these non-technical skills is the ability to write well. More and more communication within the industry is written. More and more contractual liability and financial issues are being resolved on the basis of written documentation in both bid and negotiated work.

In addition, research skills that are part of a good history course are extremely valuable to have in managing construction. The ability to find and read technical information, to organize that information for a specific purpose, and to draw valid conclusions from that research are part and parcel of a well-presented construction claim. To be able to present those conclusions in well-written and persuasive arguments is a major part of the process. A requirement for a written research paper has proven to be an effective way to build skills in writing and research methods, and at the same time incorporate them within broader curricular objectives.

It is easy to overlook the value of this second set of arguments for including history within the curriculum. Indeed, there are other ways in which to focus attention on writing and research skills. Yet, the sad fact remains, we are graduating people to go into the construction industry who sometimes cannot use correct grammar, syntax, or punctuation, and whose ability to communicate effectively will, most surely, hold them back from career advancement into management ranks.

Summary of case for including history in the curriculum

The hypothesis of this paper is that some sense of history is an important part of the educational experience of those attempting to become managers of construction companies. The focus of that history should be on the forces that have shaped the industry as we know it in the United States today, i.e. primarily Western society and technology. The inclusion of one such course within the average curriculum should be sufficient to give students a broad sense of the evolutionary process and time frame within which our industry has come into being.

The inclusion of one such course within the curriculum also provides nearly ideal conditions for focusing writing and research skills essential to an effective manager. Based on experience at the University of Washington, many technically competent students who show only marginal writing skills prior to taking history turn out to be good writers. Moreover, this improvement in writing and research skills seems to carry over into subsequent course work. It may be no more than the emphasis on these skills required in a history course that results in students focusing attention on improving their writing skills.

OUTLINE OF HISTORY COURSE CONTENT

BCON 350 is the current course taught at the University of Washington. It has evolved over the past twenty years with a series of shifts in emphasis. Its early days emphasized the evolution of materials used in modern construction. Gradually the addition of construction equipment and methods such as fasteners, forming, transportation, and lifting devices where included in the course. By the late 1970s the course had been developed to a relatively stable point, reflecting stability within the curriculum and in terms of faculty assigned to teach the course.

The next stage of course development came during the early 1980s when a series of different faculty members were assigned to teach the course. There were attempts to include the study of architectural style, political and economic events, and the development of cultural/national distinctions within Western history. As a result, the course began to lose its focus on the history of construction.

In 1984 two new text books were introduced that served to refocus the course. One is Henry Cowan's The Master Builders covering Western history from Mesopotamia to the Industrial Revolution, ending in 19th Century Europe. The second text is Carl Condit's American Building covering building and construction in the United States from 1600 to the present. These texts are still in use, although there is a serious need for a new text to cover the United States experience.

Current focus of the course

Currently the course has a dual format that incorporates much of what has been included in the past, but focuses on factors which have influenced construction. One format presents information in a rough chronological time frame, by discrete societies and/or cultures, throughout the period from 8000 BC to the present. During this first part, the course traces the evolution of those Western cultures which have led to the dominant features of United States construction technology and organization.

A second format isolates important features of current construction materials, equipment, and organization, and traces their evolution over time. Here the focus is on the evolution of discrete elements such as concrete, or lifting devices, or organization of capital/labor rather than on discrete societies. This seems to work best after an overall frame of reference has been established during the early part of the course. The author has unsuccessfully tried reversing the order of presentation.

Chronological presentation of information

The first part of the course looks at a series of discrete societies and cultures from the standpoint of how geography/topography/climate, government/religion, economics, and technology have affected construction. There are clear distinctions between societies wherein one will excel in the area of government as evidenced by a strong military presence, such as the societies of Mesopotamia, which is used to overcome shortcomings in natural settings, or economics. Another society, such as Egypt, existing at the same time, may be able to use accidents of natural settings which provide security from external attack to focus efforts on advancing technology. At other times a society may emerge which combines significant advances in several areas at one point in time, such as Rome, resulting in a seeming burst of progress in construction as well as many other aspects of society. (See Figure 1)

During this part of the course it is important to try to knit together all aspects of a given society in order to understand impacts on construction. There are clear differences between cultures that invent significant new technologies and those who borrow technology and use it to significantly improve standards of living. For instance, even though Rome created the highest standard of living in all of Europe, at least up until the 17th Century, there were relatively few technological innovations throughout Europe during the 500 years of Roman rule. Roman society borrowed organizational methods, technology, and even culture from other less advanced or older societies.

For each society studied the focus is on how it adapted and organized resources to deal with construction. For example, not much time is spent on the evolution of the wheel until its introduction into construction, by the Greeks, in the form of crude carts to transport finished stone from the quarry to the construction site. Shortly after this time, crude capstans employed wheels to lift light construction materials into place. But it was not until Archimedes developed the dolphin for military uses that wheels were incorporated into lifting devises flexible enough to lift heavy loads vertically and swing them horizontally, as used by the Romans in their construction efforts.

Likewise, the use of metals for implements of warfare in Mesopotamia or for jewelry in Egypt is of less interest, even though it predates the use of metal in construction by at least 1,500 years. Probably the first significant use of metal appears in Greece as fasteners (nee cramps) used for aligning individual stones in columns or as simple false work under the architrave e.g. lintel, of Greek Temples. This early use tends to disappear in Roman construction because of the introduction of concrete as a binder.

Therefore, even though the Romans borrowed the classical orders and overall building forms from the Greeks, they used an accident of nature, i.e. concrete made from natural pozzolana cement, to radically change the method of constructing their buildings. After this time metals are limited to lead used in roofs and plumbing, and iron hardware until the Industrial Revolution.

Time and time again, combinations of political stability and economic activity can be seen to produce societies with high standards of living. But it is not until the Industrial Revolution that we see these relatively high standards of living combined with significant innovation in technology affecting construction during the 17th and 18th Century. It was the combination of stable government, strong economy, and the application of theory, first "invented" by the Greeks, that allowed England to advance construction so rapidly. Even in the face of this rapid improvement in construction methods and techniques, there was more absolute innovation going on in France and, later in Germany, even though neither was as politically stable nor economically strong as England.

This chronological format outlines societies starting in areas to the north of the Persian Gulf, moving west and north to England before jumping to the United States.(See Figure 2) This sweep covers the period from approximately 3500 BC until today and includes the following societies:

Each of these examples from history can potentially shed light on possible responses from societies with similar characteristics today. In addition, this part of the course sets the general time frame within which specific aspects of construction have emerged.

Specific materials. equipment, and organization

The second part of the course outlines the development of specific aspects of the construction industry as we know it today. Here the emphasis is on showing the impact of various dimensions of society on the evolution of a single aspect of construction, and how ideas and technology may have been borrowed from other societies and times to combine in new methods, materials, or technology.

For instance, the development and use of metals in construction has been relatively lengthy and continuous, starting with the first uses of malleable iron or copper cramps as fasteners in Greek buildings. Without experiments in forging and annealing metals for use in weapons, the technology for making cramps might not have been available. Roman advances in glass blowing developed the ability to raise temperatures high enough to actually melt metals, making casting possible, although not yet economically feasible.

It was not until the development of the blast furnace in the 16th century, coupled with the use of charcoal, that casting became feasible for construction uses. This resulted in the rapid depletion of European forests, which led to the use of coal in making metals. Demand for fireproof mill construction during the Industrial Revolution focused attention on the development of metals for large scale construction use. With the development of the Bessemer process in the United States, and the substitution of coke for coal, modern metal usage came into widespread use in the late 19th century.

Engineering theory paralleled advances in metal technology, and was relatively well advanced as early as the 15th century. Technology, theory, and economics developed at similar paces after that time. Contrast this with the development of concrete as a construction material. With the exception of Rome, no society was able to develop and use concrete on a wide scale until the beginning of the 19th century.

Advances in chemical theory were essential before a consistent supply of cement for concrete could be made available. This did not occur until less than two hundred years ago. Even then concrete was not incorporated into building structure until the development of mathematical tools to solve indeterminate equations about one hundred years ago. Consequently the use of concrete has fewer historical antecedents, partly leading to the more imaginative and unrestrained uses of the material n construction today.

In an entirely different area, the organization of construction activities, as we know them today, has many parallel it Fluences throughout history. Who is the client, who controls material and labor supplies, when did money become the medium f( r procuring construction services, and how that changed he client/ contractor relationship are all important precedents fort to organization of modern construction activities.

The fact that centralized political and economic control   of society has almost always led to massive public works construction as opposed to business- and consumer-oriented construction is clearly evident throughout history. The presence of a politically independent and economically strong middle class has been the basis for business and consumer based construction activities. Historically, oligarchies and other economically elite groups have tended to be clients for large scale, lavish private constriction at the expense of public works, not unlike the very recent past in the United States.

This portion of the course knits together the evolution c construction materials, equipment, and organization to how various aspects of society have influenced the construction industry we know today. Just as there is constant interplay between the yin and yang in Eastern thought, societies a re constantly demanding new building forms at the same tine that adapting economies of scale and organizational responses to meet these needs. Sometimes supply precedes demand and at others, the reverse is true. But neither can be out of balance for long periods of time.

At various times over the past four years, the course has looked at the following aspects of the construction industry and traced their evolution throughout history:

Not all subjects have been covered each quarter the course has been taught. Variables that influence how far we get in the class include the amount of student interest and discussion during the first part of the class and the speed with which each class picks up the flow of historical ideas. From our experience, there are relatively wide variations from class to class.

APPROACH TO TEACHING METHODS

This particular course has always served the construction student. Therefore, the emphasis in setting up teaching methods has been on finding ways to bring into sharp focus the events and forces shaping the construction industry in the Untied States today.

Class Presentations

The primary teaching format is a lecture and question/answer class session. The course is taught over a ten-week quarter, currently with the class meeting three times per week for 50 minute sessions. The author has also taught two 80-minute sessions per week and found that 80 minutes is simply too long to maintain student attention for a lecture course like history.

Part of what varies from class to class is the interest level of the students in asking and discussing questions. Often there is an attempt to relate the topic for each session to some current event that should be readily apparent to students. Sometimes this sparks questions and a lively discussion, which inevitably slows down the speed with which the "history" material can be presented. However, the increased interest level of class sessions together with the added relevance and ultimate value of the course is well worth the variable pace.

Most sessions are illustrated by anywhere from 10 to 60 slides. These slides are used to illustrate points made in the lectures, rather than to serve as the subject of the lecture itself. In this sense, the use of slides is quite different from that typical in an architectural or art history course. The purpose of construction history is not to dwell on the merits or flaws of any one object or period, but to survey and compare the development of ideas, technology, and methods. It seems to work well to compare and contrast two or more examples as illustrations rather than to spend a great deal of time analyzing one example.

The slides are drawn from the extensive College collection, from a rather large personal collection of the current Dean (who previously taught the course), and the author's own personal collection. In our case we are fortunate to be administratively housed in a College of Architecture and Urban Planning with a slide collection approaching 100,000 individual slides. Even so, we are constantly requesting slide copying to augment the roughly 3,000 slides in the construction collection, which the slide librarian has been more than willing to do.

One cautionary note about what class presentations are not. There is no attempt to teach the course using extensive events and/or dates. Students are responsible for knowing seminal events in a rough time frame, at least to the correct century. Contemporary thought regarding the teaching of history is moving away from the idea of history as a series of discrete events related in time. The history of construction is particularly inappropriate to attempt to attach dates to events, partly because

the events themselves as so indistinct, and partly because there has been so little historical research that even clearly defined events are difficult to accurately date.

Student Responsibilities

One important responsibility of students is to come to class prepared to participate. In fact 5% of the course grade is earned through class participation, although attendance is not taken. There are usually 40 to 50 students per class, which is clearly beyond the size for operating in seminar fashion. However, you can engage that many students in lively discussion over the course of a ten-week quarter.

There are two quizzes and one final that are worth a combined 45­50% of the course grade. These exams are split two thirds objective answer, i.e. true/false, multiple choice, or matching questions, and one third essay answers. Part of the grade on the essay portion is based on technical writing skills, but not on style. Sample exams are on reserve in the library so that all students are on an equal footing.

The largest part of the course grade is dependent on an individual research paper. Students are free to choose any topic they wish, although they must have their topic and bibliography approved. This ensures appropriate and adequate source materials are available for good research. Students are responsible for identifying factors present within a society that influenced the important features of their individual topic. They are also encouraged to draw parallels or conclusions that have relevance for construction today, although this latter is not a required part of their course grade.

Papers routinely run between 10 and 20 pages including illustrations. Students must use correct research writing skills such as annotations, footnotes, references, etc. Evaluation of papers is based 30% on appropriateness of the topic, 30% on research approach, 30% on completeness of the research, and 10% on technical writing skills, including neatness. There are three intermediate review points throughout the quarter with up to 9 bonus points (out of a total of 150 points) earned for meeting these intermediate deadlines.

In reviewing research papers, what is most surprising is the correlation between the level of performance in more technical construction courses and history. Very seldom will there be a case where someone does outstanding work in history and relatively poorly in other courses. This tends to support the argument that writing could probably be incorporated in most courses without significantly altering the performance curve of students.

Thoughts on qualifications for course instructors

None of the instructors that have taught BCON 350 over the last 20 years has been trained as an historian. This is not to indicate that an interest in and love of history is not probably essential in order to do a good job. Instructors must be comfortable with some form of lecture format, and have some level of familiarity in using graphic aids.

The author was very fortunate to have the course outlines, texts, and the 15 year's experience of others who taught this history course to begin to build on. This contribution cannot be overemphasized. However, none of this background came from conventional "history" departments or faculty. In fact, one impression from interaction with the members of a strong architectural history faculty in our College is that formal training in history may be somewhat of hindrance in teaching a broad survey course. This has primarily to do with the definition of what is appropriate subject matter to an "historian" as opposed to the necessarily broader view of the construction educator.

For instance, this course uses Cowan's book The  Master builders as a required text, and it has proven to be excellent. However, Cowan's subsequent book, Science and Technology, intended to follow chronologically The Master builders, is of no use to our course because it is much too detailed in terms of dates, events, and people. Consequently, it is very difficult to follow the thread of an idea without getting bogged down in what for a broad survey course such as ours is minutia.

Therefore, in searching for appropriate faculty to consider teaching a course in construction history, it might be fruitful to look among your own construction faculty colleagues for someone who:

Such a person will need constant encouragement and support, particularly during the early stages of developing the course. The author would be excited about sharing resources, experience, and ideas with anyone so interested.

SUMMARY

For those programs which aim at educating managers of construction companies as well as of construction activities on the job site, a course in construction history is valuable to include in your curriculum. There are recurring ideas and events throughout history that are manitest in our society today, and which have sometimes profound effects on the construction industry without most of us ever being aware of them. A properly conceived and effectively taught course in construction history can prepare students to recognize these influences in a time frame that allows for effective management responses.

Over the past 20 years such a course has been included in the curriculum at the University of Washington. It is currently a one quarter course that is broken into two parts. The first part traces a series of discrete societies that have had primary influences on the construction industry as we know it in the United States today. The second part focuses on key aspects of that industry and traces their evolution across these various societies.

The resources for teaching such a course probably already exist within most construction faculties. All that is needed is some administrative support, some reference materials that are readily available, and some students. The rewards have been very gratifying at the University of Washington.

REFERENCES