An official website of the United States government
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
This content will become publicly available on November 25, 2025
Two criticisms of engineering ethics assessment
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
- Award ID(s):
- 2316634
- PAR ID:
- 10631804
- Publisher / Repository:
- Routledge
- Date Published:
- ISBN:
- 9781003464259
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 556 to 568
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This paper describes a project to develop, deliver, and assess a short-term (one-week) course on global engineering ethics at Shandong University, Shandong, China in the summer of 2022. This project builds on previous work regarding the development and assessment of global engineering ethics, shortening the time required to deliver and assess a course. The goal was to explore whether a shorter version of the course resulted in gains similar to the longer version, and whether shorter versions of the assessment instruments could track these gains. Ethics is increasingly recognized as central to engineering, although disagreement exists concerning how it should be carried out and assessed. These disagreements are compounded by the global nature of engineering, where technologies span multiple countries, and peoples from different cultures work together as never before. Separation in time and space between those developing technologies and those affected by these technologies can increase difficulties associated with identifying and mitigating the negative effects of technology on human life. Additionally, regulatory and cultural differences can lead to disagreement regarding how technologies should or should not be developed and used. For these reasons, efforts have been made to develop global engineering ethics education. Over several years, members of the team have developed and delivered a semester-long, two-credit hour course in global engineering ethics, finding that participants scored significantly higher in measures of ethical reasoning post- than pre-course, and developed a greater concern with fairness and loyalty. Given the limited time and space in engineering curricula, and limited number of qualified faculty to teach global engineering ethics, this project sought to determine whether a course with reduced contents delivered over a shorter period of time would be similarly effective. Additionally, it sought to determine whether shorter versions of the instruments used to assess this education, the ESIT (Engineering and Science Issues Test) and MFQ (Moral Foundations Theory), would be as effective as their original, longer versions. This was motivated by the fact that, in ongoing research, the project team was having difficulty collecting adequate sample sizes, in part because it was taking so long to complete full versions of the ESIT and MFQ. To do so, in July of 2022, Chinese students enrolled in “Global Engineering Ethics” completed shortened versions of the ESIT and MFQ on the first and last days of the course. Our presentation will describe the nature of the course, as well as pre- and post-course results on shortened versions of the ESIT and MFQ.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
-
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
-
In the engineering ethics education literature, there has recently been an increasing interest in longitudinal studies of engineering students’ moral development. Understanding how first-year engineering students perceive ethics can provide baseline information critical for understanding their moral development during their subsequent journey in engineering learning. Existing studies have mainly examined how first-year engineering students perceived the structure and elements of ethics curricula, personal ethical beliefs, pregiven ethics scenarios, institutional ethical climates, and particular political ideals (e.g., fairness and political involvement). Complementary to the existing studies, our project surveyed how first-year engineering students perceived public welfare beliefs, examples of (un-)ethical behaviors in engineering, and professional ethical values. Specifically, we adopted part of the well-known instrument developed by Erin Cech to assess how students perceived public welfare beliefs. An important goal of replicating Cech’s work is to examine whether students from a different cohort (i.e., 18 years after the cohort in Cech’s study, and from a more specialized institution than those in Cech’s study) hold different public welfare beliefs. We invite engineering educators to carefully examine how temporality might matter when considering the connections between previously conducted studies with their own ongoing projects. Our survey also asked students to provide an example of unethical behavior in engineering and possible ethical problems they anticipate in their future careers. Finally, we asked students to list three most important values for defining a good engineer. Such a question on professional ethical values responds to a gap in the engineering ethics literature, namely, that engineering students’ perceptions of professional virtues and values are not sufficiently addressed (especially among first-year students). This paper is part of a larger project that compares how students develop moral reasoning and intuition longitudinally across three cultures/countries: the United States, Netherlands, and China. We hope that findings in this paper can be useful for engineering educators to reflect on and design subsequent ethics education programs that are more responsive to students’ backgrounds and needs when they start their first year in engineering programs.more » « less
