There is a widespread approach to the teaching of ethics to engineering students in which the exclusive focus is on engineers as individual agents and the broader context in which they do their work is ignored. Although this approach has frequently been criticised in the literature, it persists on a wide scale, as can be inferred from accounts in the educational literature and from the contents of widely used textbooks in engineering ethics. In this contribution we intend to: (1) Restate why the individualistic approach to the teaching of ethics to engineering students is inadequate in view of preparing them for ethical, professional and social responsibility; (2) Examine the existing literature regarding the possible contribution of Science, Technology and Society (STS) scholarship in addressing the inadequacies of the individualistic approach; and (3) Assess this possible contribution of STS in order to realise desired learning outcomes regarding the preparation of students for ethical and social responsibility.

4349AbstractThe reasons behind the demand for what is sometimes called the New Engineer are critically examined and it is argued that a focus on employability alone is not sufficient to prepare socially responsible engineers. By examining issues around work organisation and sustainability it is proposed that engineers need to understand the wider social context in which they work. It is argued that the focus of ethics education should be broadened to focus on the social structure and the way it both enables and constrains socially responsible conduct. There is a call to refocus engineers' attitudes towards the systems of regulation so they see them not only as constraints but as potential enablers supporting socially responsible engineering.

This paper aims to review the empirical and theoretical research on engineering ethics education, by focusing on the challenges reported in the literature. The analysis is conducted at four levels of the engineering education system. First, the individual level is dedicated to findings about teaching practices reported by instructors. Second, the institutional level brings together findings about the implementation and presence of ethics within engineering programmes. Third, the level of policy situates findings about engineering ethics education in the context of accreditation. Finally, there is the level of the culture of engineering education. The multi-level analysis allows us to address some of the limitations of higher education research which tends to focus on individual actors such as instructors or remains focused on the levels of policy and practice without examining the deeper levels of paradigm and purpose guiding them. Our approach links some of the challenges of engineering ethics education with wider debates about its guiding paradigms. The main contribution of the paper is to situate the analysis of the theoretical and empirical findings reported in the literature on engineering ethics education in the context of broader discussions about the purpose of engineering education and the aims of reform programmes. We conclude by putting forward a series of recommendations for a socio-technical oriented reform of engineering education for ethics.

The article aims to expand upon traditional case based instruction through role-play and to explore the effectiveness of the approach in raising students' awareness of the social dimension of the engineering profession. For this purpose, we added a contextual description to the case study Cutting Roadside Trees driven by a macroethical outlook. Our contribution draws on an exercise based on the contextualised case study in which 80 students at Technological University Dublin participated. The results gathered show that role-playing contributed to complex student responses to the scenario and an awareness of the social factors that are part of engineering practice and which can constrain or enable decision-making. We suggest that exposing students to the perspectives of the different stakeholders that are involved in engineering professional practice can contribute to their understanding of the social context of engineering practice.

This paper presents data from a project which aims to determine the level of knowledge and understanding of engineering students about Sustainable Development (SD). The data derives from a survey completed by final year engineering students in three Irish Higher Education Institutions. This paper is part of a larger study which examines the relationship between students' and teachers' understanding of SD. The results from the survey show that final year engineering students have a discipline-led conception of SD. The majority of the participants fail to acknowledge the complexity of the concept and focus only on environmental protection. Their knowledge of legislation relevant to SD and the social aspect of sustainability is deficient.

Our contribution is part of a broader study conducted in cooperation with the national accreditation body Engineers Ireland that examined the conceptualisation and education of ethics in engineering programmes in Ireland. The paper is a qualitative examination of the use of case studies in engineering ethics education and includes 23 engineering programmes from 6 higher education institutions in Ireland. The qualitative study aims to determine (RQ1) how cases are selected, (RQ2) the goals envisioned for engineering ethics case instruction, (RQ3) the characteristics of the scenarios employed and (RQ4) the preferred application by instructors. A first finding notes the diverse set of goals and application of ethics case studies. The focus is more on decision-making in professional contexts and less on power relations, equity and the broader societal mission of engineering. The second finding highlights the discrepancy between how instructors employ cases and their preferred application. Engineering ethics cases typically include individualistic, hypothetical and historical scenarios. Nevertheless, instructors favour immersive cases set in real or realistic contexts of practice, containing factual or real-time data, which can provoke students to reflect on broader ethical issues. Considering this aspirational discrepancy, we conclude with recommendations that can guide the development of engineering ethics case instruction.

Abstract:In 2007 Gary Downey, Juan Lucena and Carl Mitcham argued that a "key issue in ethics education for engineers concerns the relationship between the identity of the engineer and the responsibilities of engineering work". They suggested that "one methodological strategy for sorting out similarities and differences in engineers' identities is to ask the 'who' question. Who is an engineer? Or, what makes one an engineer?" (Downey, Lucena & Mitcham, 2007). This chapter explores these questions of who is an engineer and what makes one an engineer by examining how engineering and engineering technology students in Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) describe and differentiate themselves. DIT offers both 4-year engineering degrees (that are equivalent to the educational standard required for professional status) and 3-year degrees in engineering technology. Annually DIT graduates the largest combined number of engineering and engineering technology majors in the country. We present results that show that there is no distinct sense of identity for a technologist. For faculty as well as engineering students and engineering technology students, design is perceived as a key differentiating activity that separates the engineer from the engineering technologist. Paradoxically, while all students chose DIT based on its reputation and practical focus, it is engineering technology students who indicated they are prepared for the 'real world' as they near graduation. Results also show, in terms of their own responses, that engineering and engineering technology students have fairly consistent views of their education and preparation for the workforce.

Two issues of particular interest in the Irish context are (1) the motivation for broadening engineering education to include the humanities, and an emphasis on social responsibility and (2) the process by which broadening can take place. Greater community engagement, arising from a socially-driven model of engineering education, is necessary if engineering practice is to move beyond its present captivity by corporate interests.