Personality Dimensions and Temperaments of Engineering Professors and Students - A Survey

Personality Dimensions and Temperaments of Engineering Professors and   Students - A Survey
Notice: This research summary and analysis were automatically generated using AI technology. For absolute accuracy, please refer to the [Original Paper Viewer] below or the Original ArXiv Source.

This research work aims to study personality profiles and temperaments of Pakistani software engineering professors and students. In this survey we have collected personality profiles of 18 professors and 92 software engineering students. According to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument, the most prominent personality type among professors as well as among students is a combination of Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging (ISTJ). The study shows ITs (Introverts and Thinking) and IJs (Introverts and Judging) are the leading temperaments among the professors. About the students data, the results of the study indicate SJs (Sensing and Judging) and ISs (Introverts and Sensing) as the dominant temperaments.


💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates the personality types and temperaments of software engineering professors and students in Pakistan using the Myers‑Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). A total of 18 professors and 92 undergraduate or graduate students were surveyed through standard MBTI questionnaires administered both online and in‑person, with anonymity guaranteed. The collected responses were classified into the four MBTI dichotomies (Introversion‑Extraversion, Sensing‑Intuition, Thinking‑Feeling, Judging‑Perceiving) and mapped onto the 16 possible personality types. Frequency analysis revealed that ISTJ was the most prevalent type in both groups—44.4 % of professors and 31.5 % of students. Among professors, the next most common types were INTJ (22.2 %) and ESTJ (16.7 %). Among students, ISFJ (12.0 %) and ESTJ (10.9 %) followed ISTJ.

Temperament analysis, which groups the MBTI dimensions into broader categories, showed distinct patterns. Professors were dominated by the IT (Introvert‑Thinking) and IJ (Introvert‑Judging) temperaments, accounting for 38.9 % and 33.3 % respectively. This suggests that faculty members tend to adopt a logical, analytical approach and prefer structured, rule‑based decision‑making. In contrast, students were primarily SJ (Sensing‑Judging) and IS (Introvert‑Sensing), representing 27.2 % and 24.5 % of the sample. These temperaments indicate a preference for concrete, practical tasks, adherence to schedules, and a comfort with detailed, step‑by‑step instruction.

The authors discuss the educational implications of these findings. The alignment of professors’ IT/IJ temperaments with a systematic, criteria‑driven teaching style can provide clear expectations and consistent assessment methods. However, the students’ SJ/IS preferences point to a need for more hands‑on projects, real‑world case studies, and frequent, specific feedback to sustain motivation and deepen understanding. Bridging the gap between the faculty’s logical, structured orientation and the learners’ practical, detail‑focused orientation could enhance instructional effectiveness.

Limitations acknowledged include the modest sample size, which restricts the ability to generalize results beyond the studied institutions, and the lack of subgroup analyses by gender, academic year, or specialization. Moreover, the authors note the ongoing debate about the psychometric robustness of MBTI, cautioning against treating the results as definitive personality diagnoses. They recommend future research with larger, more diverse samples, multivariate statistical techniques, and possibly alternative personality assessments to validate and extend the current findings.

In conclusion, the study reveals a shared dominance of the ISTJ type among Pakistani software engineering faculty and students, while highlighting divergent temperamental emphases—professors gravitate toward Introvert‑Thinking‑Judging (IT/IJ) and students toward Sensing‑Judging and Introvert‑Sensing (SJ/IS). Recognizing these differences can inform curriculum design, team formation, and mentorship strategies, ultimately fostering a learning environment that respects both the analytical rigor valued by instructors and the concrete, application‑oriented preferences of learners.


Comments & Academic Discussion

Loading comments...

Leave a Comment