An official website of the United States government
Most engineering programs in the United States are accredited by ABET under the guidelines known as EC-2000. The EC-2000 framework is broadly based on the continual quality management (CQM) movement in industry where programs are striving to constantly improve the quality of their output, in this case the skills of graduates. Broadly speaking, ABET evaluates engineering programs on eight different criteria; some are related to processes, some to resources, but those central to CQM are program educational objectives, that define hoped for long-term accomplishments of graduates, and outcomes which articulate what students can do when they graduate. Degree programs must convince ABET they have a documented and effective process to improve outcomes to gain accreditation. CQM of course is not the only framework by which educational development can be framed or measured. This paper explores ABET processes through the lens of the economist Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which is broadly applied in the developing world in areas of inequity, poverty, and human rights. The capability approach is often used when a focus on diverse individuals is desirable for understanding aspects of development. Central to Sen’s approach are capabilities and functionings. Capabilities are the resources and supports in an individual’s environment that provide opportunities to pursue a life they value. Functionings are what they actually become and do. Thus capabilities can be thought of as the potential for functionings; alternatively capabilities are opportunities and functionings are outcomes. This paper compares ABET’s accreditation criteria with a published set of capabilities in education. The comparison shows there are some areas where criteria overlap with capabilities, but also several areas where the overlap is low. The capabilities that aligned most with ABET criteria overlap with engineering epistemologies and a view of students as the ‘product’ of engineering education.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on November 25, 2025
Foundational perspectives on ethics in engineering accreditation
This chapter presents a historical and cross-national comparative examination of the formal incorporation of ethics and related learning outcomes in accreditation criteria for engineering graduates. The authors begin by exploring the origin of modern accreditation systems in higher education, emphasizing key developments in the United States over more than a century. They note more recent, widespread moves from inputs- to outputs-based frameworks, alternate quality assurance methods used in some non-US regions, and the continued global influence of US-style approaches to accreditation. They then present a series of specific cases to explore when, where, and how ethics and associated concerns have been formally codified in accreditation requirements for engineering graduates. They start with the United States as a well-documented and influential example and follow this with a description of two other Western/Anglo settings (the United Kingdom and Canada). They then turn to two international agreements (the Washington Accord and EUR-ACE) and two East Asian cases (Japan and China). Their account synthesizes prior scholarship and references some primary source materials, offering fresh new insight into the origins and development of engineering ethics education accreditation.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10631734
- Publisher / Repository:
- Routledge
- Date Published:
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 575 to 594
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Most engineering programs in the United States are accredited by ABET under the guidelines known as EC-2000. The EC-2000 framework is broadly based on the continual quality management (CQM) movement in industry where programs are striving to constantly improve the quality of their output, in this case the skills of graduates. Broadly speaking, ABET evaluates engineering programs on eight different criteria; some are related to processes, some to resources, but those central to CQM are program educational objectives, that define hoped for long-term accomplishments of graduates, and outcomes which articulate what students can do when they graduate. Degree programs must convince ABET they have a documented and effective process to improve outcomes to gain accreditation. CQM of course is not the only framework by which educational development can be framed or measured. This paper explores ABET processes through the lens of the economist Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which is broadly applied in the developing world in areas of inequity, poverty, and human rights. The capability approach is often used when a focus on diverse individuals is desirable for understanding aspects of development. Central to Sen’s approach are capabilities and functionings. Capabilities are the resources and supports in an individual’s environment that provide opportunities to pursue a life they value. Functionings are what they actually become and do. Thus capabilities can be thought of as the potential for functionings; alternatively capabilities are opportunities and functionings are outcomes. This paper compares ABET’s accreditation criteria with a published set of capabilities in education. The comparison shows there are some areas where criteria overlap with capabilities, but also several areas where the overlap is low. The capabilities that aligned most with ABET criteria overlap with engineering epistemologies and a view of students as the ‘product’ of engineering education.more » « less
-
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 paper reflects on the significance of ABET’s “maverick evaluators” and what it says about the limits of accreditation as a mode of governance in US engineering education. The US system of engineering education operates as a highly complex system, where the diversity of the system is an asset to robust knowledge production and the production of a varied workforce. ABET Inc., the principal accreditation agency for engineering degree programs in the US, attempts to uphold a set of professional standards for engineering education using a voluntary, peer-based system of evaluation. Key to their approach is a volunteer army of trained program evaluators (PEVs) assigned by the engineering professional societies, who serve as the frontline workers responsible for auditing the content, learning outcomes, and continuous improvement processes utilized by every engineering degree program accredited by ABET. We take a look specifically at those who become labeled “maverick evaluators” in order to better understand how this system functions, and to understand its limitations as a form of governance in maintaining educational quality and appropriate professional standards within engineering education. ABET was established in 1932 as the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development (ECPD). The Cold War consensus around the engineering sciences led to a more quantitative system of accreditation first implemented in 1956. However, the decline of the Cold War and rising concerns about national competitiveness prompted ABET to shift to a more neoliberal model of accountability built around outcomes assessment and modeled after total quality management / continuous process improvement (TQM/CPI) processes that nominally gave PEVs greater discretion in evaluating engineering degree programs. However, conflicts over how the PEVs exercised judgment points to conservative aspects in the structure of the ABET organization, and within the engineering profession at large. This paper and the phenomena we describe here is one part of a broader, interview-based study of higher education governance and engineering educational reform within the United States. We have conducted over 300 interviews at more than 40 different academic institutions and professional organizations, where ABET and institutional responses to the reforms associated with “EC 2000,” which brought outcomes assessment to engineering education, are extensively discussed. The phenomenon of so-called “maverick evaluators” reveal the divergent professional interests that remain embedded within ABET and the engineering profession at large. Those associated with Civil and Environmental Engineering, and to a lesser extent Mechanical Engineering continue to push for higher standards of accreditation grounded in a stronger vision for their professions. While the phenomenon is complex and more subtle than we can summarize in an abstract, “maverick evaluators” emerged as a label for PEVs who interpreted their role, including determinations about whether certain content “appropriate to the field of study,” utilizing professional standards that lay outside of the consensus position held by the majority of the member of the Engineering Accreditation Commission. This, conjoined with the engineers’ epistemic aversion to uncertainty and concerns about the legal liability of their decisions, resulted in a more narrow interpretation of key accreditation criteria. The organization then designed and used a “due-process” reviews process to discipline identified shortcomings in order to limit divergent interpretations. The net result is that the bureaucratic process ABET built to obtain uniformity in accreditation outcomes, simultaneously blunts the organization’s capacity to support varied interpretations of professional standards at the program level. The apparatus has also contributed to ABET’s reputation as an organization focused on minimum standards, as opposed to one that functions as an effective driver for further change in engineering education.more » « less
-
Research in engineering ethics has assessed the ethical reasoning of students mostly in the US. However, it is not clear that ethical judgements are primarily the result of reasoning or that conclusions based on US samples would be true of global populations. China now graduates and employs more STEM majors than any other country, but the moral cognition and ethics education of Chinese engineers remain understudied. To address this gap, a study examined the relations between ethical reasoning, intuitions and education among engineering students in China. It found that (1) ethical reasoning is positively related to an emphasis on care and fairness and (2) global ethics education results in significantly higher levels of ethical reasoning, as well as a greater concern with fairness and loyalty. The relation between ethical reasoning and intuitions in China is like that of students in the US, but ethics education affects students in China differently.more » « less
