Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How?

Rabins, Michael J.

doi:10.1007/s11948-998-0021-2

Cited by 37 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the authors say, ''These factors reinforce the argument that institutions such as universities… may play an indirect role by creating an atmosphere that facilitates misconduct through various forms of alienation' ' (p. 410). This conclusion is not completely new information given the variety of studies conducted on pedagogical methods of incorporating ethics education into the engineering curriculum, but many of these studies focus on the undergraduate curriculum (Rabins 1998;McGinn 2003;Newberry 2004;Lau 2004;Fleischmann 2004;Moore et al 2006). Even Wright et al's methodologically sound study (2008) does not have much to say about the causes of research misconduct among graduate students specifically, since only 12% of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) cases studied involved graduate students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?

Alfredo

Hart

2010

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of "lessons learned." What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct-the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood's research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?

Alfredo

Hart

2010

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, these findings have direct implications for ethics training. In hopes of reducing ethical misconduct, many universities have implemented ethics training programs for students (Rabins, 1998). Although not all ethics training programs have proven effective (Antes et al, 2009), training that specifically recognizes human biases and judgment errors that prevent people from making ethical decisions (e.g., rationalizations, thinking you will engage in more ethical behavior than others, black-and-white-thinking, diffusion of responsibility) and that provides strategies for overcoming these biases has demonstrated significant improvement in trainees’ ethical decision-making (Mumford et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Threats to Moral Identity: Testing the Effects of Incentives and Consequences of One's Actions on Moral Cleansing

Harkrider¹,

Tamborski

Wang³

et al. 2013

Ethics & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals engage in moral cleansing, a compensatory process to reaffirm one’s moral identity, when one’s moral self-concept is threatened. However, too much moral cleansing can license individuals to engage in future unethical acts. This study examined the effects of incentives and consequences of one’s actions on cheating behavior and moral cleansing. Results found that incentives and consequences interacted such that unethical thoughts were especially threatening, resulting in more moral cleansing, when large incentives to cheat were present and cheating explicitly harmed others. Implications are discussed in terms of ethics training, using incentives as motivators, and the depersonalized norms of science.

show abstract

“…Curriculum Models-The Required-Course Model: Herkert (4) states that "this approach has been successful at Texas A&M (39). However, due to staffing costs and fixed packed engineering curriculum, the required-course model is not widely used globally.…”

confidence: 99%

Ethics Education in Undergraduate Engineering Curricula

Özgen¹

2015

Turkish Journal of Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How?

Cited by 37 publications

References 1 publication

The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?

The University and the Responsible Conduct of Research: Who is Responsible for What?

Threats to Moral Identity: Testing the Effects of Incentives and Consequences of One's Actions on Moral Cleansing

Ethics Education in Undergraduate Engineering Curricula

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About