An official website of the United States government
This chapter begins by discussing two broad criticisms of engineering ethics education (EEE) assessment and then suggests ways to improve it. The criticisms focus on whether (1) measures used in EEE effectively assess behavior change and (2) they should be used across different national and cultural groups. To address these criticisms, the authors argue that educators and researchers should draw on insights and methods from moral and cultural psychology, using more globally representative participant samples. Measures of EEE assessment have been developed primarily by scholars working in the United States, with participants from US universities. However, it is unclear whether moral reasoning, sensitivity, attitudes, or values result in more ethical behaviors – presumably, the goal of EEE – or if these measures assess what they should. It also remains unclear whether these measures are reliable across global populations. Engineering is a global profession, but measures of EEE have been developed by researchers in and with sample groups primarily drawn from the United States. The United States is culturally WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic), and relative to global populations, individuals from WEIRD cultures are outliers on various psychological and social measures. This chapter provides food for thought about behavior and culture related to ethics.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 25, 2025
The purposes of engineering ethics education
Defining the purposes of engineering ethics education (EEE) is paramount for the engineering education community, and understanding the purposes of EEE can be a catalyst for actively involving students in the learning process. This chapter presents a conceptual framework for systematically describing and comparing various approaches to the purposes of EEE. Such a framework is inherently embedded with a tension between a normative approach and a pragmatic approach regarding the purposes of EEE. The normative approach focuses on what the purposes of EEE should be, an ‘ideal world’ scenario, given the needs of the engineering profession and of society at large. Conversely, the pragmatic approach starts from the question ‘What can be achieved through educational practice?‘ and results from ‘actual world’ situated outcomes of stakeholder negotiations. The authors’ framework balances these. They – scholars from diverse cultural backgrounds – assert that the purposes of EEE are socially constructed and vary from country to country based on unique historical, political, and cultural contexts. Their framework embraces both the individualistic and holistic aspects of EEE, incorporating perspectives from both Western and non-Western traditions. It identifies six purposes of EEE (knowledge, actions, personal traits, relationships, etc.), aligning these with examples (e.g., moral knowledge, desirable actions, ethical skills or competencies, care ethics, etc.) and theoretical frameworks (moral epistemology, moral psychology, virtue ethics, objects or qualities of relations, etc.). It is problematic and potentially dangerous when engineering educators design ethics-learning activities without critically examining the purposes of these activities and assessing whether these purposes are justified for educating ethically and professionally competent engineers. This chapter provides tools to help avoid such pitfalls.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2316634
- PAR ID:
- 10631730
- Publisher / Repository:
- Routledge
- Date Published:
- ISBN:
- 9781003464259
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 27 to 43
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Most engineering ethics education is segregated into particular courses that, from a student’s perspective, can feel disconnected from the technical education at the center of their programs. In part because of this disconnect, several immersive programs designed to train engineering students in socio-technical systems thinking have emerged in the U.S. in the past two decades. One pedagogical goal of these programs is to provide alternative ideologies and practices that counter dominant cultural paradigms that marginalize macroethical thinking and social justice perspectives in engineering schools. In theory, longer-term immersion in such programs can help students overcome these harmful ideologies. However, because of the difficult nature of studying cultural change, very few studies have attempted to provide a thick description of how these alternative cultural practices are influencing student perspectives on engineering practices. Our study offers a rare glimpse at student uptake of these practices in a multi-year Science, Technology, and Society (STS) living-learning program. Our study explores whether and how cultural practices within an STS program help students develop and sustain the resources for using a socio-technical systems thinking approach to engineering practice. We grounded our work in a cultural practices framework from Nasir and Kirshner [1] which roughly understands practice to be “a patterned set of actions performed by members of a group based on common purposes and expectations, with shared cultural values, tools, and meanings” ([2, p. 99] as cited in [3]). Our descriptions of collective enactments of cultural practices are grounded in accounts of classroom events from researcher fieldnotes and reflections in student interviews. Looking across the enactment of practices in classrooms and students’ interpretations of these events in interviews allows us to describe the multiplicity of meanings that students distill from these activities. This paper will present on multiple cultural practices salient to students we have identified in this STS community, for example: cultivating an ethics of care, making the invisible visible, understanding systems from multiple perspectives, and empowering students to develop moral stances as citizens and scientists/engineers in society. Because of the complexity of the interplay between the scaffolding of the STS program’s pedagogy and the emergence of these four themes, we chose to center “cultivating an ethics of care” in this analysis and relationally explore the other three themes through it. Ethics of care manifests in two basic ways in the data. Students talk about how an ethics of care is part of the STS program community and how the STS program fosters the need for an ethics of care toward communities outside the classroom through human-centered engineering design.more » « less
-
oday’s engineering students face a very different world than their predecessors. As engineering has adapted to a more global and interconnected economy, the issues that face today’s engineers have become more complex. In a highly networked world notions of the impact of an engineer’s actions on others, the basis for moral and ethical behavior, also become more complex. The definition of complex here captures higher-order and emergent behaviors, situations that can change rapidly, limitations to predictability, and behavior arising from interactions rather than innate to components. While ethics has remained central to engineering education and in general has retained its deontological basis, the ideas the serve as the basis for engineering ethics have changed over time and can be expected to change in the future. The fact that the future ethical challenges that engineering students will face will be distributed and complex while most engineering curricula focus on simplified systems and decisions indicates emerging challenges for effectively addressing engineering ethics within the curriculum. Frameworks that distinguish simple and complicated from complex systems—in which outcomes are more uncertain—emphasize that action becomes more important than knowledge. In other words, it is more important to do what is right, even if one’s actions are imperfect, than know what is right to do. This paper explores the intersection of engineering curricula and engineering ethics from the perspective of “right action”, that is being able in act in ways that lead to ethical outcomes. It is argued that by focusing predominately on knowledge and situating learning in academic settings engineering curricula miss opportunities for developing capabilities for action. Through this lens the opportunities to address engineering ethics in the curriculum are seen to lie predominately outside traditional coursework.more » « less
-
Engineering is more cross-cultural and international than ever before, presenting challenges and opportunities in the way engineering ethics is conceived and delivered. To assist in providing more effective ethics education to increasingly diverse groups, this paper shares three related projects implemented at the University of Michigan-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute (China). These projects are united in their attempts to address challenges arising from the increasingly global nature of engineering. The first is a course on global engineering ethics, developed for and attended by engineering students from diverse backgrounds. The second is a website hosting contents on global engineering ethics education and conducting research related to cross-cultural moral psychology. The third explores methods of assessing engineering ethics and moral development, using paradigms of ethical decision-making. Although these projects were developed in a Chinese-US collaboration with university students, these contexts could facilitate the adoption of similar programs elsewhere, with practicing engineers.more » « less
