In December 2017, the author defended the doctoral thesis titled “Exploring the dual nature of engineering education: Opportunities and challenges in integrating the academic and professional aspects in the curriculum”. In this paper, the thesis is summarised with the interests of the CDIO community in mind, providing guidance for those who might want to read selected parts. In the title, the term dual nature suggests that engineering education is both academic, emphasising theory in a range of subjects, and professional, preparing students for engineering practice. Ideally, these aspects are also in a meaningful relationship in the curriculum. However, this duality is also a source of tensions. This is the theme, explored in the context of engineering education development, in particular the CDIO approach. First, micro-cases on programme and course level illustrate how the dual nature ideal is pursued in the integrated curriculum. This is followed by two critical accounts, which suggest widening the perspective from curriculum development per se, to the organisational conditions. The first is a historical excursion, comparing the views of Carl Richard Söderberg (1895-1979) with CDIO, showing significant similarities in ideals, arguments, and strategies. The second is an effort to make sense of experiences of unsustainable change, resulting in a model, called “organisational gravity”, used to explain the stability of programmes. As an implication, two change strategies are suggested, with different availability, risks, resource demands, and sustainability of results. Finally, the tensions between the academic and professional aspects are located in the university organisation. Refuting a rationalist view, the institutional logics perspective is used to analyse the tensions within engineering education. It is suggested that the logics of the academic profession dominates over the logics of the engineering profession, hence favouring “teaching theory” over “teaching professionals”. The integrated curriculum strategy depends on educators’ ability to unite theoretical and professional aspects in courses, and on the collegial capacity for coordination.
