Broadening Ethics Teaching in Engineering: Beyond the Individualistic Approach

Abstract

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.

Towards empathy: a human-centred analysis of rationality, ethics and praxis in systems development

“…Systems development engineers make choices that significantly affect the systems development process and its outcomes, and these choices depend heavily on their personal value systems, beliefs and ethical dispositions (Kumar and Bjorn-Andersen, 1990, Kreie and Cronan, 2000, Davison et al, 2006. These decisions are not ethically neutral (Wood-Harper et al, 1996), and engineers must therefore endeavour to act as "moral agents" in the systems development process due to their proximity, knowledge and position of influence (Walsham, 1993), even if individual moral agency may be environmentally constrained (Conlon and Zandvoort, 2011). The personal values of systems engineers are consequently embedded in system designs and proliferate through system implementation artefacts and dissemination choices (Brey, 2000, Friedman, 1996.…”

“…Various concerns have therefore been raised regarding the individualistic approach to ethics education and training, which uses ethical-response scenarios that are oversimplified and naïve regarding the broader social, organisational and political complexities of engineering practice (Conlon and Zandvoort, 2011). In response, there has been increasing support for "virtue ethics" to inform ethical (or empathy-oriented) systems development (Gotterbarn, 1999, Grodzinsky, 2000, Carew et al, 2008.…”

“…Although this mode of rationality is not intrinsically immoral or disorderedindeed, it the de facto manner in which most engineers work -it tends to be myopic or indifferent towards human and socially centred values and issues in its pursuit of instrumental goals. The need to incorporate such societal issues, concerns and values into mainstream systems engineering has been recognised for some time, and there is consequently a need to change the context within which engineers work so to enable, rather than constrain, social responsibility (Conlon and Zandvoort, 2011). However, despite its recognition, this need continues to attract comparatively little attention in systems engineering.…”

“…In order to foster international stability, systems development must embrace a more ethically aware and "value sensitive" approach (Friedman, 1996) (Conlon andZandvoort, 2011, Carew et al, 2011). Colby and Sullivan (2008) noted that engineering graduates in particular have low levels of commitment to social action, believing that individuals cannot change society.…”

“…The personal values of systems engineers are consequently embedded in system designs and proliferate through system implementation artefacts and dissemination choices (Brey, 2000, Friedman, 1996. These choices may be influenced or constrained by the culture in which the engineers work but they are, nevertheless, individual choices that affect other people's lives (Conlon and Zandvoort, 2011). The decisions made by a few individuals therefore hold the potential to affect broad collectives of people who are impacted, on many levels, by technological systems development.…”