Engineering education commonly deemphasizes the moral and ethical teaching required for future engineers. Measuring the ethical values that engineering students and professionals possess, and how those views change over time, is a challenging prospect given the complexity of such concepts. One proposed method to characterize a person’s moral development is by asking them to identify a moral exemplar. In this paper, we explore who engineering students and early-career engineering professionals identify as moral exemplars and the traits and characteristics they use to describe these moral exemplars.
The data used in this paper comes from a series of two longitudinal, mixed-methods projects which explored engineering students’ and professionals’ perceptions of ethics and social responsibility. During these projects, three interviews were conducted with longitudinal participants: one at the start of the first year of their engineering undergraduate studies (T1, n = 112), a second during their senior year (T2, n = 33), and a third 2-3 years after they graduated and started their engineering careers (T3, n = 20). This study focuses on interviewees' responses to one question: “Can you identify and describe someone, (for example, someone you know, a historical figure, or a famous person), that you think exemplifies moral character or professional or personal integrity?”
In this paper, we identify and categorize the identities of these chosen moral exemplars. The list of categories was made and modified according to the trends we saw in moral exemplars of the engineering students. Occasionally, we had trouble determining how to categorize a response and, as a result, would put the moral exemplar into two categories.
Additionally, we analyze the traits interviewees use to describe their moral exemplars, with the Big 5 Personality Traits used as an analytical framework [2]. When studying the personality traits of the moral exemplars, we would rank them from 1-10 depending on if they either positively (10) or negatively (1) align with the traits [2]. If the trait was not described, we would rank them a 0.
From our analysis, a few notable patterns emerged. In T1, the largest category was family members accounting for 38% of the moral exemplars. In T2, family members were again the largest category, but now made up 22% of the moral exemplars. Additionally, around 60% of both the T1 and T2 participants cited their moral exemplars as someone they know personally. Interestingly the gender of the Moral exemplars for T1 and T2 is 68% male, 14% female and 18% other/not specified.
We plan to compare the gender of the interviewees with the moral exemplars they identified to understand if there was any correlation between the two factors. We are also investigating longitudinal changes over time in the categories of the moral exemplars identified by participants. Finally, we are also comparing the personality traits of the moral exemplars described by our young engineer participants to prior work investigating the personalities of moral exemplars.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 23, 2025
Examining the Characteristics and Traits of Young Engineers’ Moral Exemplars
Engineering education commonly deemphasizes the moral and ethical teaching required for future engineers. Measuring the ethical values that engineering students and professionals possess, and how those views change over time, is a challenging prospect given the complexity of such concepts. One proposed method to characterize a person’s moral development is by asking them to identify a moral exemplar. In this paper, we explore who engineering students and early-career engineering professionals identify as moral exemplars and the traits and characteristics they use to describe these moral exemplars.
The data used in this paper comes from a series of two longitudinal, mixed-methods projects which explored engineering students’ and professionals’ perceptions of ethics and social responsibility. During these projects, three interviews were conducted with longitudinal participants: one at the start of the first year of their engineering undergraduate studies (T1, n = 112), a second during their senior year (T2, n = 33), and a third 2-3 years after they graduated and started their engineering careers (T3, n = 20). This study focuses on interviewees' responses to one question: “Can you identify and describe someone, (for example, someone you know, a historical figure, or a famous person), that you think exemplifies moral character or professional or personal integrity?”
In this paper, we identify and categorize the identities of these chosen moral exemplars. The list of categories was made and modified according to the trends we saw in moral exemplars of the engineering students. Occasionally, we had trouble determining how to categorize a response and, as a result, would put the moral exemplar into two categories.
Additionally, we analyze the traits interviewees use to describe their moral exemplars, with the Big 5 Personality Traits used as an analytical framework [2]. When studying the personality traits of the moral exemplars, we would rank them from 1-10 depending on if they either positively (10) or negatively (1) align with the traits [2]. If the trait was not described, we would rank them a 0.
From our analysis, a few notable patterns emerged. In T1, the largest category was family members accounting for 38% of the moral exemplars. In T2, family members were again the largest category, but now made up 22% of the moral exemplars. Additionally, around 60% of both the T1 and T2 participants cited their moral exemplars as someone they know personally. Interestingly the gender of the Moral exemplars for T1 and T2 is 68% male, 14% female and 18% other/not specified.
We plan to compare the gender of the interviewees with the moral exemplars they identified to understand if there was any correlation between the two factors. We are also investigating longitudinal changes over time in the categories of the moral exemplars identified by participants. Finally, we are also comparing the personality traits of the moral exemplars described by our young engineer participants to prior work investigating the personalities of moral exemplars.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2024301
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10528489
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE PEER
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Engineered systems are designed to serve societal needs, from bridges providing mobility to communication systems enabling the transfer of information. It is essential that engineers recognize the social impact of their work to ensure they provide equitable benefits across communities when implementing such systems. In times of crisis, such as after natural disasters, these ethical considerations and awareness of community needs are especially important. Ethical development must begin when engineers are still students so that they can be trained to consider ethical issues before they begin working. Ethical development can be observed using James Rest’s Four-Component Model of Morality: moral sensitivity, moral judgement, moral motivation, and moral behavior. Previous work has focused largely on the second stage, moral judgement, which describes the ability to determine which action is morally right when confronted with an ethical issue. Here, however, we focus on the first stage, moral sensitivity, emphasizing one’s ability to recognize a moral issue. Studies show that while moral sensitivity does not always lead to moral behavior; moral sensitivity can help explain variances in moral behavior. Researchers argue that pinpointing students’ gaps in moral sensitivity can help educators identify gaps in engineering ethics curriculum. Towards this goal, we interviewed undergraduate engineering students to evaluate their moral sensitivity, using a current event, the 2021 Hurricane Ida in Southern Louisiana, as background. This natural disaster provided a useful context to evaluate moral sensitivity due to the complex effects of such a crisis on engineered, natural, and social systems. The story is framed using Lind’s Indicators of Ethical Sensitivity, providing the story characteristics, stakeholders, and consequences. We asked interviewees to provide the final indicator—ethical issues. Using a qualitative content analysis, we found that interviewees connected several ethical issues with the primary consequence of socioeconomic inequities. Identified ethical issues included topics of climate change, infrastructure, disaster planning, and corporate/government accountability. Implications of this study include recommendations for future moral sensitivity research and applications to improve classroom learning.more » « less
-
more » « less
Motivation is an important predictor of ethical awareness; however, it is not easy to assess. The goal of our study is to examine the relationship between motivation and ethical awareness in engineering students. We focus on two personality measures: person-thing orientation and spheres of control and test their association with ethical awareness using engineering scenarios that present ethical dilemmas. We predict that engineering students who score higher on the personality dimension of personthing orientation will display more ethical awareness than those who score lower. We also predict that students with a higher level of personal control will also display more ethical awareness. Two groups of students were involved in the study. Group 1 was formed by fifty-three first-year engineering students from University in the United States and Group 2 was represented by sixty-four sophomore engineering students in Engineering School in Spain. Students worked individually on case studies that presenting ethical dilemmas; they were asked to write short essays describing how they would respond to each situation. Then the essays were analyzed using an ethical reasoning and a global awareness rubric. Results revealed that 1) the context/nature of the students’ responses to the case study varied greatly, 2) personality traits and global and ethical perspective, all correlate to students’ ethical decisions as measured by their responses to the case studies scores, 3) there is an alignment between the SOC and the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) dimensions that merits further exploration.
-
Ethics as long been recognized as vital to responsible engineering practice, with research focusing mostly on the effects of ethics pedagogies and programs on ethical reasoning and knowledge. Historically, engineering ethics has tended to be “normative” – telling people how they should think about or behave in engineering. Recent work in moral and cultural psychology has called into question the extent to which ethical judgements are based primarily ethical reasoning. Ethical judgments are also the result of intuitions, emotions, and held values. The authors argue that more empirical research using this perspective is needed to explore first-year engineering students’ ethical intuition. As such, this quantitative and qualitative research study examines the relationship between moral intuitions, measured using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), and student-held values about what is important in the engineering profession. Around 285 first-year engineering students were surveyed at a public university in the northeast United States as part of a larger research initiative that seeks to understand the effects of diverse cultural and educational experiences on ethical judgements in engineering. This paper reports the findings from a portion of this survey, namely the MFQ and the open-ended question “List three values you think are the most important for defining a good engineer”. Descriptive and correlational analyses are employed to examine meaningful connections between moral intuitions and values. Since moral foundations theory is based on a broader, more inclusive understanding of ethics, results from this research can be more easily generalized, compared, and built on in increasingly cross-cultural settings.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Ethics and social responsibility have frequently been identified as important areas of practice for professional engineers. Thus, measuring engineering ethics and social responsibility is critical to assessing the abilities of engineering students, understanding how those abilities change over time, and exploring the impacts of certain ethical interventions, such as coursework or participation in extracurricular activities. However, measurement of these constructs is difficult, as they are complex and multi-faceted. Much prior research has been carried out to develop and assess ethical interventions in engineering education, but the findings have been mixed, in part because of these measurement challenges. To address this variation in prior work, we have designed and carried out a five year, longitudinal, mixed-methods study to explore students’ perceptions of ethics and social responsibility. This study relies on both repeated use of quantitative measures related to ethics and repeated qualitative interviews to explore how students’ perceptions of these issues change across time, between institutions, and in response to participation in certain experiences. This paper focuses on the thematic analysis and preliminary results of the 33 pairs of interviews that were gathered from participants at three different universities in Year 1 and Year 4 of their undergraduate studies. Given the multifaceted and complex nature of ethics, measuring and assessing how students’ perceive its various aspects (e.g. those related to ethical climate, moral awareness, moral disengagement etc.) has proven challenging. Furthermore, investigating how students’ perceptions of these concepts vary over time adds another layer of complexity for analyzing our longitudinal data. For example, a student might show increased understanding in one aspect of ethics over time and consistency in another, making it difficult to identify patterns or the impacts of specific influences. Due to this large variation in student experiences and perspectives, we used single case analysis to analyze the longitudinal interviews of a single participant, Corvin. From this analysis, three themes emerged in the student's responses: a shift in his views of engineering ethics and social responsibility from idealism to pragmatism; an adjustment in how he thinks engineers should balance their responsibilities to the public and to their employers; and the characteristics he identifies for ethical engineers. This paper will be beneficial for engineering educators and researchers who are interested in measuring and developing ethical capabilities among engineering students.more » « less
