Ethics

C H A P T E R 3 3

Engineering Ethics

Brock E. Barry and Joseph R. Herkert

Introduction

Instruction and research related to engineer- ing ethics is by no means a new field of practice. However, as the field of engineer- ing education has been formalized and seen significant growth, the field of engineering ethics has naturally benefited. This chapter is divided into four subsections. The first sec- tion is a relatively brief overview of what engineering ethics is and how is it defined. The second section is a review of the his- torical development of engineering ethics in professional practice and in higher educa- tion. The third section is focused entirely on engineering ethics in education and addresses issues of curriculum content, ped- agogical methods, resources, and instruc- tor qualifications, as well as providing an overview of assessment of moral develop- ment. Finally, the fourth section focuses on engineering ethics in practice and cov- ers such topics as the environment and sus- tainability, research ethics, application of ethics in international context, academic dishonesty, macroethics, and other emerg- ing issues.

What Is Engineering Ethics?

Two of the most popular textbooks in engi- neering ethics define engineering ethics in similar yet different ways. The definition offered by Martin and Schinzinger (1996) in their classic text is descriptive:

Engineering ethics is (1) the study of moral issues and decisions confronting individuals and organizations engaged in engineering and (2) the study of related questions about the moral ideals, character, policies and relation- ships of people and corporations involved in technological activity. (pp. 2–3)

Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins (2000), on the other hand, offer a more normative defini- tion:

Engineering ethics is concerned with the ques- tion of what the standards in engineering ethics should be and how to apply these standards to particular situations. One of the values of studying engineering ethics is that it can serve the function of helping to promote responsible engineering practice. [emphasis added] (p. 26)

673

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

674 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

In both cases, the authors focus on the moral issues and standards of the engineer- ing profession, but Martin and Schinzinger also include consideration of technological activity more generally. This broader focus is important because moral problems in engi- neering are often influenced by factors out- side of engineering. On the other hand, the applied emphasis of Harris and colleagues, and their concern for promoting responsi- ble engineering practice, is also important, especially in engineering education.

The study and teaching of engineering ethics are often closely tied to the notion of professional responsibility, where a pro- fession can be defined as “[a] learned occu- pation requiring systematic knowledge and training, and commitment to a social good” (Wujek & Johnson, 1992, slide 15). Under this common notion of a profession, soci- ety grants the profession privileges such as prestige, financial rewards, and professional autonomy in return for the members of the profession committing themselves to a social good.

Philosopher Michael Davis points out (1999b) that professional ethics is inte- gral to professional practice, asserting that “[p]rofessional ethics is as much a part of what members of a profession know – and others do not – as their ‘technical’ knowl- edge. Engineering ethics is part of think- ing like an engineer.” Further, unlike some philosophers, Davis (1999b) emphasizes the primary role of the members of the profes- sion in prescribing the ethical standards of the profession:

Professional ethics . . . belongs neither to com- mon sense nor to philosophy but to the profes- sion in question. Knowing engineering ethics is as much a part of knowing how to engineer as knowing how to calculate stress or design a circuit is. Indeed, insofar as engineering is a profession, knowing how to calculate stress or design a circuit is in part knowing what the profession allows, forbids, or requires.

History of Engineering Ethics

With the exception of the Code of Ham- murabi, which largely covers medical

regulations (British Medical Association, 1984), little documentation of engineering ethics can be found prior to the early 1900s. Petroski (2008) speculates that this may be due to the lack of an all-encompassing pro- fessional authority prior to that time. The first engineering society in the United States to adopt a code of ethics was the American Institute of Consulting Engineers (AICE) in 1911 (Luegehbiehl, 1991). The codes of engi- neering ethics for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the National Society of Professional Engineers date to 1912 and 1946, respectively (Baura, 2006). Fleddermann (2008) has suggested that engineering codes during the early part of the twentieth century were focused pri- marily on issues of how to conduct busi- ness. For example, many early engineering codes referenced service as a faithful agent or trustee. Although these early codes fail to mention public health, safety, and wel- fare, many authors (Davis, 2001; Pfatteicher, 2003) believe such items are implied. The Engineers’ Council for Professional Devel- opment, a precursor to ABET, Inc. (for- merly known as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), made the first explicit reference to the engineer’s responsi- bility to the public in 1947 (Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2005). The balance between business and professionalism is referred to as “one of the most important forces in the formation and evolution of engineer- ing societies in America” in Layton’s The Revolt of the Engineers (1971, p. 25). The commonly recognized phrase “[engineers] shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” first appears in the 1974 Engineer’s Council for Pro- fessional Development code (Harris et al., 2005).

In the early days of American colleges, ethics instruction was considered a corner- stone of the curriculum. In fact, ethics was held in such high regard that teaching the subject was often an honor reserved for the college’s president (Rosen & Caplan, 1980). However, around 1880, ethics content slowly began to be replaced as a result of pressures to increase specialization in

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 675

undergraduate programs (Baum, 1980; Davis, 1999a; Hastings Center, 1980; Rosen & Caplan, 1980). As early as the 1930s, ethics content was relegated to elective courses (Hastings Center, 1980; Kelly, 1980). Then in the 1970s, engineering and medi- cal professional societies began raising con- cerns that colleges and universities were not adequately preparing graduates to address personal and professional moral dilemmas (Hastings Center, 1980).

During the past several decades, there has been a growing awareness of the impor- tance of ethics in engineering practice. Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, & McGourty (2005) suggest that the single largest change agent bringing professional skills, including ethics, back into the curriculum has been ABET’s Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000). Criterion 3 of EC2000 includes a series of 11 outcomes (a–k) that students are expected to embody on graduation from accredited engineering programs. Specifi- cally, Criterion 3.f states that graduates must demonstrate an “understanding of profes- sional and ethical responsibility” (ABET, 2007).

Several notable engineering-related dis- asters during the latter half of the 1900s, including the Ford Pinto design issues (1970s), Three Mile Island accident (1979), Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway col- lapse (1981), Chernobyl (1986), and the space shuttle Challenger accident (1986), have focused greater attention on engineer- ing ethics, both in academics and in prac- tice. In addition, these events have increased awareness of the role of the engineer in soci- ety. In turn, this has led to an increase in the quantity and quality of academic research in the area of engineering ethics, and ulti- mately recognition of engineering ethics as a respected field of study. The National Sci- ence Foundation (NSF) has supported broad research in the areas of engineering ethics and engineering ethics education. The NSF’s most recent funding initiative through its Ethics Education in Science and Engineering (EESE) program has focused primarily on graduate-level ethics education and research ethics.

Engineering Ethics in Education

Goals and Content of Engineering Ethics Education

The desired outcomes of engineering ethics education are aptly described by Davis (1999b):

Teaching engineering ethics . . . can achieve at least four desirable outcomes: a) increased ethical sensitivity; b) increased knowledge of relevant standards of conduct; c) improved ethical judgment; and d) improved ethical will-power (that is, a greater ability to act ethically when one wants to).

Framed in this manner, the goals of engi- neering ethics instruction, as well as the ability to evaluate student performance, are similar to other subjects in the engineering curriculum, despite the fact that engineers sometimes question whether ethics can be taught and evaluated.

Engineering ethics is often conceptual- ized in a framework of “professional respon- sibility,” characterized by many ethicists as moral responsibility arising from special- ized knowledge possessed by an individ- ual, where, according to Whitbeck (1998), “for someone to have a moral responsibil- ity for some matter means that the person must exercise judgment and care to achieve or maintain a desirable state of affairs” (p. 37). The “desired state of affairs” can vary from profession to profession. Martin and Schinzinger argue (1996) that responsible engineers are dedicated to “the creation of useful and safe technological products while respecting the autonomy of clients and the public, especially in matters of risk- taking” (p. 42). Professional responsibility is also reflected in the issues traditionally considered in engineering ethics instruction, including (Rabins, 1998; Wujek & Johnson, 1992) public health, safety and welfare; risk (including the principle of informed con- sent); environmental quality; conflict of interest; truthfulness; integrity of data; whis- tle blowing; job choice; loyalty and account- ability to clients and customers; plagiarism and giving due credit; quality control; con- fidentiality; industrial espionage and trade

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

676 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

secrets; gifts and bribes; employer/employee relations; and discrimination. As seen in the fourth section of this chapter, in recent years the focus of engineering ethics has expanded beyond such traditional issues.

Ethics in the Engineering Curriculum

Any discussion of ethics in the engineer- ing curriculum raises several questions that must be addressed: What methods of cur- riculum integration are available? How much curriculum content is enough to sat- isfy ABET Criterion 3.f? Is quantity or qual- ity more important? The primary meth- ods of incorporating ethics within curricula include required courses within the disci- pline, required courses outside the disci- pline, ethics across-the-curriculum, and linking ethics with societal implications of technology (Herkert, 2000a). The “required course within the discipline” approach is typically performed as a full-semester, multiple-credit class, which all students within a given discipline are required to complete. This approach has been success- fully used for engineering ethics at Texas A&M (Rabins, 1998) and a few institutions with much smaller engineering programs; however, the high staffing costs and tightly packed engineering curriculum make the required-course model difficult if not impos- sible to adopt in most engineering pro- grams. Even if it is possible, a required course needs to be supplemented by fur- ther ethics instruction in “real” engineering courses; otherwise students may be left with the impression that ethics is not an inte- gral part of their engineering education. This is particularly true when the stand-alone course is not taught or co-taught by regu- lar engineering faculty.

The “within the discipline” method fo- cuses class content on discipline-specific issues, such as engineering ethics. The “course outside the discipline” method relies on course offerings outside of engineer- ing, typically within philosophy or religion departments. This method often presents students with a more general ethics back- ground, while sacrificing much of the dis-

ciplinary context captured in the “within the discipline” method. For engineering stu- dents, marginalization of ethics is even greater than in the “within the discipline” method.

The “ethics across-the-curriculum” app- roach, patterned after writing-across-the curriculum programs, frequently presents students with ethical considerations, in mul- tiple courses, during a progression toward their degree. This method requires a col- lective commitment among department faculty to capitalize on ethics discussions within courses that have a non-ethics topic as their principal focus (Weil, 2003).

Finally, the “linking of ethics with the societal implications of technology” app- roach uses a curriculum model with a series of required core courses that strongly emphasizes professional ethics and the role of the discipline within society. This type of model is found in programs that design their complete curriculum around the prin- ciples of professionalism and society. The Science, Technology and Society Program (formerly the Program on Technology, Cul- ture and Communication) at the Univer- sity of Virginia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science is an example. In that program, “all engineering students take a four-course core” and integration with the engineering curriculum occurs “through a required senior thesis on the social impacts of a technical project” (Herkert, 2000a, p. 310).

There is a wide variation in the amount of ethics content presently in use in the engineering curricula (Barry & Ohland, 2012; Herkert, 2000a, 2002; Rabins, 1998). Curricu- lum content refers to both the number of courses and number of course credits. Engi- neering education literature is full of opin- ions regarding the most effective amount of curriculum content (Baum, 1980; Drake, Griffin, Kirkman, & Swann, 2005; Hast- ings Center, 1980; Newberry, 2004; Rosen & Caplan, 1980). A study by Barry and Ohland (2012) was the first of its kind to make a quan- titative and qualitative simultaneous analy- sis of multiple amounts of ethics-based cur- riculum content. Qualitative aspects of the

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 677

study showed that the represented engi- neering programs were highly uncertain of how much professional and ethical con- tent is sufficient to satisfy ABET during accreditation review and that the typical program reaction is to increase the quan- tity of applicable content in their curricula. When amount of curriculum content was statistically evaluated against student per- formance in the engineering ethics content on a nationally administered, engineering- specific examination, there was a lack of reported hierarchal structure between cur- riculum content and examination perfor- mance. This would appear to be in conflict with literature (Chickering & Gamson, 1991) that identifies a link between time-on-task and student achievement. One implication of these findings is that there are variables that have a greater influence on examina- tion performance than the amount of cur- riculum content. A study by Vogt (2008) underscores the influence that faculty mem- bers have on academic achievement. Specifi- cally, Vogt found that students had “greater engagement in course material if they felt positive toward faculty and their classroom environments” (p. 34). Similarly, Lambert, Terenzini, and Lattuca (2007) found sig- nificant, although indirect, effects of pro- gram characteristics and faculty behavior on student learning. Both quality and quan- tity are unquestionably important. Thus, although the engineering education litera- ture is replete with arguments over the opti- mum quantity of curriculum content, the suggested conclusion is that the discourse would be better focused on the quality of instruction.

Pedagogical Methods

Curriculum-level decisions are largely made at the administrative level. However, classroom pedagogical methods are an instructor-level decision and have great bearing on the delivery of engineering ethics education.

Harris, Davis, Pritchard, and Rabins (1996) suggest that “there is widespread agreement that the best way to teach

professional ethics is by using cases.” The widely used engineering ethics text by Har- ris et al. (2005) makes extensive use of cases to illustrate ethical concepts. Fleddermann (2008) also utilizes cases to illustrate ethical concepts within his text. Loui (2005) dis- cusses the use of case-based ethics instruc- tion in developing student self-efficacy in dealing with moral dilemmas. Based on the common reference to case-based instruction related to engineering ethics, it would be dif- ficult to argue that this pedagogical method is not the most common. However, the engi- neering literature is devoid of research that definitively identifies a most effective ped- agogical method for introducing students to engineering ethics. It is important to recognize that other instructional methods are valid and in use. For example, Bird (2003) makes a strong argument for the use of team-based projects and workshop-type instruction as an alternative to case-based instruction. Although literature advocating for purely lecture-based ethics instruction was not identified, there is evidence that this method has support (Baum, 1980; Self & Elli- son, 1998). An emphasis on instruction using codes of ethics and theoretical grounding was noted in a meta-analysis of conference papers conducted by Haws (2001). Similarly, codes and ethical theories are also discussed extensively in the texts of Harris et al. (2005, 2009) and Fleddermann (2008).

As the most widely used pedagogical method, case-based instruction provides students with an opportunity to connect ethical questions and theoretical concepts in context. Multiple learning theories advocate the idea of learning in context (see Chap- ter by Newstetter & Scinicki of this hand- book for more information related to learn- ing theories). Engineering ethics cases can be found in a variety of forms: long or short, real or fictional, technical or nontechnical (Yadav & Barry, 2009). They may be avail- able in print, but are increasingly available in online, multimedia, or video formats. Cases are self-contained, or include documenta- tion, such as book chapters (or even entire books), journal and magazine articles, news stories, and primary source data. In spite of

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

678 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

such variety, Davis (1999a) observes several common characteristics of effective cases, including the encouragement of students to express ethical opinions, identify ethical issues, formulate and justify decisions, and “develop[ment] in students [of] a sense of the practical context of ethics” (p. 174).

Well-known cases used in engineering ethics instruction include the 1979 DC-10 crash in Paris that killed 346 people (Fielder & Birsch, 1992), the collapse of suspended atrium walkways at the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel in 1981 that killed 114 and injured dozens (Pfatteicher, 2000), and the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Chal- lenger (Pinkus, Shuman, Hummon, & Wolfe, 1997).

Such high-profile cases are useful for gaining the attention of engineering stu- dents, but typically the ethical dilemmas encountered by most practicing engineers are far less spectacular. Case studies of more commonplace events, such as fictionalized reviews of actual cases considered by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Board of Ethical Review, are also used in classrooms. NSPE cases focus on such varied topics as conflicts of interest, trade secrets, and gift giving (Smith, Harper, & Burgess, 2008).

Pritchard (1998) has called for the devel- opment and use of cases that focus on “good works;” that is, cases that demonstrate that making sound ethical judgments need not end in disaster or scandal. One such case is that of William LeMessurier, the civil engineer who designed New York’s Citi- Corp Building. After discovering, when the building was already in use, that it had not been constructed to withstand hurricane- force winds, he informed his partners and CitiCorp of the problem and insisted that immediate action be taken to correct it. Another example cited by Pritchard is that of Fred Cuny, an engineer who dedicated his professional career to disaster relief, who disappeared in 1995 when he was attempting to negotiate a cease-fire in war-torn Chech- nya. (See Chapter 9 by Davis and Yadav in this handbook for more content related to case studies in engineering.)

Educational Resources

Although there is no clear “best” instruction method for delivery of engineering ethics education, there are plenty of resources available to draw from. In addition to the large number and variety of engineering ethics textbooks (e.g., see Baura, 2006; Gunn & Vesilind, 2003; Fleddermann, 2008; Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 2009; Herkert, 2000b; Martin & Schinzinger, 1996; Seebauer & Barry, 2001), there is an extensive amount of electronic content that can be utilized.

The Online Ethics Center (OEC) for Engineering and Research (www.online ethics.org), initially funded through a series of NSF grants, is currently maintained by the Center for Engineering, Ethics and Soci- ety of the National Academy of Engineer- ing. The mission of the OEC is “to provide engineers and engineering students with resources for understanding and addressing ethically significant problems that arise in their work, and to serve those who are pro- moting learning and advancing the under- standing of responsible research and prac- tice of engineering” (National Academy of Engineering, 2011b). The website contains an extensive number of cases and scenarios, as well as related discussion points. Guidelines and codes of ethics for both scientific and engineering societies from multiple coun- tries are assembled in a single location. The website also provides a detailed listing of biographies of individuals working in the engineering ethics community.

The National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) is a not-for-profit educational corporation with the mission of promoting the study and application of ethics in engi- neering education and throughout the pro- fession of engineering (www.niee.org). In 2001, the NIEE was absorbed into the Mur- dough Center for Engineering Professional- ism at Texas Tech University. NIEE pro- vides professional ethics workshops, sem- inars, presentations, and distance learning opportunities. In addition, NIEE obtained financing for, produced, and markets a series of highly successful engineering ethics videos: Gilbane Gold (1989; produced by the

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 679

National Society of Professional Engineers), Incident at Morales (2003), and Henry’s Daughters (2010). A study guide, presen- tation handout, full script, and suggested assignments are freely available for use with each video. NIEE has also generated an excellent text titled Engineering Ethics: Con- cepts, Viewpoints, Cases, and Codes (Smith et al., 2008). Finally, the NIEE website also contains a large number of cases and mod- ules designed for classroom use.

The University of Illinois has devel- oped an NSF funded National Cen- ter for Professional and Research Ethics (NCPRE) (www.nationalethicsresourcecen ter.net). The mission of the NCPRE is to “develop, gather, preserve, and pro- vide comprehensive access to resources related to ethics for teachers, students, researchers, administrators, and other audi- ences” (Gudeman, 2011). The NCPRE web- site, Ethics CORE, contains a wealth of teaching resources including course lectures, course syllabi, role-playing scenarios, and various discussion scenarios.

A large number of professional journals and magazines are dedicated to engineer- ing ethics research and instruction, includ- ing: Science and Engineering Ethics (published by Springer), IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, and Teaching Ethics (published by the Society for Ethics Across the Curricu- lum). In addition, several other journals rou- tinely publish articles on engineering ethics research and instruction, including the Jour- nal of Engineering Education (published by the American Society for Engineering Edu- cation), the International Journal of Engineer- ing Education (published by TEMPUS), and the Journal of Professional Issues in Engi- neering Education and Professional Practice (published by the American Society of Civil Engineers).

Qualifications to Teach Engineering Ethics

The code of ethics for the National Soci- ety of Professional Engineers states that engineers shall “perform services only in their area of competence” (National Society

of Professional Engineers, 2011). What then would qualify an engineering educator to be “competent” to teach engineering ethics? Without question, there is a certain mini- mum level of qualification required to teach any particular subject matter. Typically, institutions with a Carnegie Classification of “RU,” or equivalent, require their faculty to hold terminal degrees in their field and to demonstrate competence in their area of specialization (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007). Thus, an individual who teaches courses in classical ethics would typically be expected to hold a Ph.D. in philosophy or religion. Likewise, an individual who teaches courses within an engineering discipline would be expected to have a Ph.D. in that subject matter. How- ever, an apparent gray area is created when the fields of ethics and the engineering disci- plines are combined. In addition, it is not dif- ficult to find examples of individuals with- out an engineering, philosophy, or religion background who are successfully teaching courses in engineering ethics.

A series of reports by the Hastings Cen- ter identified a hesitation among faculty in various disciplines to teach professional ethics (Baum, 1980; Hastings Center, 1980; Kelly, 1980; Powers & Vogel, 1980; Rosen & Caplan, 1980). Preparation of faculty to comfortably engage in engineering ethics instruction remains one of the biggest chal- lenges facing engineering ethics education. The Hastings Center reports indicate that as of 1980 the qualifications to teach pro- fessional ethics within various disciplines were unclear (Baum, 1980; Hastings Cen- ter, 1980; Powers & Vogel, 1980; Rosen & Caplan, 1980). In addition, the Hastings Center studies revealed that most individ- uals teaching professional ethics had little or no prior training in the subject area. The Hastings Center recommends that an indi- vidual qualified to teach professional ethics should have an advanced degree in their home discipline (e.g., engineering), as well as a solid background in ethics. Notably, the Hastings Center does not believe that an advanced degree in moral philosophy or moral theology is required (Rosen & Caplan,

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

680 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

1980). In Baum’s report (1980) for the Hast- ings Center, he states that individuals with first-hand field experience are well-suited to teach professional ethics and that qualified individuals should be familiar with the his- tory of their own discipline, including the development of professional societies and codes.

As Newberry (2004) notes, most “current engineering faculty members are products of the admittedly ethics-deficient under- graduate engineering educational system” (p. 349). In an effort to overcome this, an individual can develop an expertise in professional ethics in the course of self- education through reading, use of online resources, discussions with colleagues and, where available, faculty development semi- nars. Weil (2003) provides a detailed discus- sion of how faculty seminars and workshops can increase the awareness and comfort of faculty preparing to teach professional ethics. Thus, although a background and experience in philosophy and engineering might make an individual well prepared to teach engineering ethics, a well prepared instructor from history of science or technol- ogy, technical communications, science and technology studies, and so forth could be equally qualified. First and foremost, faculty must be enthusiastic about and comfortable with discussing ethical issues and the social implications of engineering.

Assessment of Understanding

Most forms of assessment in engineer- ing ethics specifically evaluate the notion of moral reasoning. Although ethics and morals are often regarded as distinct con- cepts, earlier in this chapter the authors provided several definitions and interpre- tations of engineering ethics in terms of morality. Modern efforts to assess moral reasoning can trace their lineage back to Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral development. Kohlberg’s work was initiated during his dissertation work at the University of Chicago and continued to develop over thirty years of renowned progressive research (Palmer, Cooper, &

Bresler, 2001). Underlying Kohlberg’s the- ory is the belief that individuals progress through a series of six stages of moral rea- soning. Those six stages can subsequently be grouped into three levels of morality: preconventional, conventional, and post- conventional (Crain, 2005). Kohlberg’s the- ory built upon the works of Socrates, Jean Piaget, and John Dewey (Palmer et al., 2001). Piaget’s stage theory of cognitive development forms the basis for Kohlberg’s work (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Ginsburg & Opper, 1988). Piaget’s stage theory is based on five primary tenets: stages are qualita- tively different, each stage is a structured whole, the sequence is invariant, hierarchi- cal progression, and universalization (Gins- burg & Opper, 1988). Space constraints don’t allow us to provide greater detail into the complexities of Kohlberg’s theory. The interested reader is referred to Colby and Kohlberg (1987); Crain (2005); Gins- burg and Opper (1988); Killen and Smetana (2006); Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer (1983); Kohlberg (1981); or Kohlberg et al. (1983) for further background related to Kohlberg’s theory.

The moral reasoning assessment tool developed by Kohlberg is known as the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI). In using this tool, participants read three prepared moral dilemmas and then provide oral responses to a series of standardized ques- tions that the test administrator uses to probe the participant’s reasons for their statements. Justification for the participant’s reasoning, rather than merely right versus wrong, is the focus of the assessment. Par- ticipants are scored based on the relation between their responses to the dilemmas and Kohlberg’s six predefined stages. The MJI has been shown to be a valid and reli- able assessment of moral reasoning (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Kohlberg, 1981). Although other tools for the general assessment of moral reasoning have been developed by various researchers, they each grounded their studies in the works of Kohlberg and in turn Piaget.

Although the MJI was the first well known tool for assessment of moral reason,

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 681

perhaps the most widely employed moral reasoning assessment tool is the Defining Issue Test (DIT) (Killen & Smetana, 2006) as developed by James Rest (Self & Ellison, 1998). The DIT owes its popularity among researchers to its format and ease of scor- ing. Unlike the MJI, the DIT is a paper-and- pencil–based multiple-choice examination that can be group administered and com- puter scored. Thus, it eliminates the need for a trained administrator and rater famil- iar with the 800+ page scoring guide used in the MJI (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999). The most recent version of the Defin- ing Issues Test is known as the DIT-2. The DIT-2 maintains the framework of the orig- inal, while streamlining the instructions and updating the dilemmas (Rest, 1999). After reviewing each of five moral dilemmas, par- ticipants make a selection from a three-point scale relative to what they believe the pro- tagonist in the dilemmas should do. Sub- sequent to the action choice, participants evaluate twelve prewritten items to iden- tify which items they believe to be the most important in addressing the dilemma. In turn, each of the twelve items is ranked using a five-point Likert-type scale. Participants must recognize and select issue statements that best reflect their understanding of the moral dilemma (Rest, 1994; Rest et al., 1999). Scoring of the DIT results in several numer- ical values, the most commonly discussed being the P-score. A P-score is defined as the relative importance that a subject gives to items representing moral thinking (Duck- ett et al., 1997; Rest et al., 1999). Like the MJI, both the DIT and the DIT-2 have been shown to be valid and reliable measures of moral reasoning (Duckett et al., 1997; Duckett & Ryden, 1994; Self & Ellison, 1998; Sutton, 1992).

Another common general moral reason- ing assessment tool, based on the work of Kohlberg, is known as the Sociomoral Reflection Measure (SRM). The SRM was developed by John Gibbs and, unlike the MJI or DIT, the SRM does not utilize a dilemma-based questionnaire. Instead, the SRM uses eleven open-ended lead-in statements and participants are asked to

consider each and then respond to a series of evaluation questions. The SRM short form (SRM-SF) can be group administered and computer scored (Basinger, Gibbs, & Fuller, 1995). Scores are converted to a four-stage system of moral reasoning that is similar to Kohlberg’s six-stage system and is also based on Piagetian stage theory. The SRM and SRM-SF have tested well for validity and reliability, but have not found widespread use to the extent that the DIT has (Self, Wolinsky, Baldwin, & DeWitt, 1989).

Other forms of general assessment, based on the work of Kohlberg, are in use, such as the Moral Judgment Test developed by Lind (1999). However, the literature would suggest that the MJI, DIT, and SRM have found the most wide spread use and recog- nition. The MJI, DIT, and SRM have been used extensively in various forms of research and have specifically been applied to the study of applied ethics within various pro- fessions (Bebeau, 1994, 2002; Drake et al., 2005; Duckett et al., 1997; Duckett & Ryden, 1994; Rest, 1994; Self & Ellison, 1998; Self et al., 1989). Although these assessment tools have proven to be valid for the evalua- tion of general moral reasoning, they lack the sensitivity and context to capture the unique aspects of professional ethics within specific disciplines. Accordingly, a variety of discipline-specific moral reasoning assess- ment tools have been developed. Several such assessment tools for the health pro- fessions, business, and law are discussed in Barry and Ohland (2009).

Although many professions, including health, business, and law, have advanced discipline-specific assessment tools to tar- get professional ethics, engineering has only recently fully developed such an assess- ment tool. Borenstein, Drake, Kirkman, and Swann presented a conference paper in 2008 that detailed encouraging results toward the development of what they had termed the Test of Ethical Sensitivity in Science and Engineering (TESSE). Subse- quently this same group published a journal article showing the results of research done using a new tool known as the Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT) (Borenstein

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

682 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

et al., 2010). This assessment tool is pat- terned after the DIT-2, but uses scenarios in the context of engineering. In a recent NSF-funded project, Canary, Herkert, Elli- son, and Wetmore (2012) have used the ESIT to evaluate three instructional mod- els (traditional stand alone course, hybrid online/face-to face course, ethics material embedded in a required course) for deliv- ering ethics instruction to graduate stu- dents in engineering and science. Although the ESIT is still in the early stages of application, it has the potential to be a highly valued engineering ethics research tool.

Engineering Ethics in Practice

Academic Dishonesty

Although this section might have been included in Part III of this chapter, the authors view academic dishonesty as an all too common reality of the practice and action of students, who are in effect appren- tices in the engineering profession. More specifically, this includes the existence of cheating among the students we teach. In his book The Cheating Culture, David Calla- han (2004) provides details related to a large number of academic cheating scandals. Indi- viduals working in academics typically don’t need to look beyond their own classes or departments to cite such unfortunate exam- ples of academic dishonesty.

Some of the most extensive and well structured research in the area of academic dishonesty has been conducted by a group of researchers known as the E3 Team. This group of engineering educators and educa- tional researchers is led by Drs. Donald D. Carpenter, Cynthia J. Finelli, and Trevor S. Harding. The long-term goals of this research team are to “quantify the frequency of cheating among engineering undergradu- ate students and to clarify their perceptions and attitudes about cheating” (E3, 2007). The team draws their motivation, at least in part, from prior research that identi- fied engineering students are more likely to

self-report frequent cheating than their peers in other disciplines.

Several successful studies related to these goals have been completed to date. The PACES-1 Study included development and testing of a 139-item survey to evaluate engi- neering students’ definition of and frequency of cheating. Among the findings of this study was that context (homework, exam- ination, etc.) influenced a student’s deci- sion to cheat (Passow, Mayhew, Finelli, Harding, & Carpenter, 2006). Further, prior experience with cheating (such as during high school) becomes a strong predictor of the likelihood to cheat in college (Carpen- ter, Harding, Finelli, & Passow, 2004). This study also determined that students tend to rationalize their cheating by suggesting that instructor-based actions (e.g., too much assigned homework) justifies their actions (Carpenter, Harding, Finelli, Montgomery, & Passow, 2006). The follow-on study, PACES-2, focused on the development and testing of a theoretical decision-making pro- cess model, known as the modified The- ory of Planned Behavior. Model valida- tion was performed using a self-developed, multiquestion survey, as well as applica- tion of Rest’s DIT-2 (discussed previously in this chapter). This study made a specific comparison between engineering students and humanities students. Findings of the PACES-2 study include the determination that engineering students reported cheating at higher frequencies than their humanities counterparts and those differences exist only in college (not in high school). Further, the modified Theory of Planned Behavior pro- vided an accurate prediction of an individ- ual’s intention to cheat (Harding, Mayhew, Finelli, & Carpenter, 2007).

More recently, the E3 team has advanced the Student Engineering Ethical Develop- ment (SEED) study in an effort to identify “the factors which positively affect the ethi- cal development of engineering undergradu- ates” (E3, 2007). This study has included col- lection of qualitative and quantitative data from nineteen institutions, representing a range of geographic locations and Carnegie Foundation classifications. After performing

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 683

a large number of focus group and individ- ual interviews, the team created the Sur- vey of Engineering Ethical Development. This detailed survey was administered to nearly 4,000 engineering undergraduate stu- dents (Holsapple et al., 2011). Although the data from this study are just now being eval- uated, one of the early reported findings sug- gest that students who possess a higher level of ethical reasoning are more likely to report dissatisfaction with ethics education (Hol- sapple et al., 2011). Likewise, the amount of content and methods used to deliver ethics education affects student satisfaction (Hol- sapple et al., 2011). It is anticipated that the rich data associated with this study will generate many additional insightful conclusions.

Engineering Design

Although engineering design is implicit in most treatments of engineering ethics, more and more it has come to be treated explic- itly. In an oft-cited chapter of their text- book, Martin and Schinzinger (1996) dis- cuss engineering design in the context of “engineering as social experimentation.” van Gorp and van de Poel (2001) highlight eth- ical issues in the design process using the sinking of the ferry Herald of Free Enter- prise as a case study. Roeser (2010) argues not only that engineering design is not value neutral, but also that emotional reflection offers valuable ethical insight in engineering design. Herkert (2003) discusses the relation- ship between engineering ethics and prod- uct liability arising from engineering design. Busby and Coeckelbergh (2003) focus on the public’s expectations of engineers’ responsi- bilities for the products they design. In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City and 9/11 terrorist attacks, Kemper (2004) argues that design responsibility extends to anticipating evil intent. Whitbeck (1998) observes that the problem-solving approach employed in engineering design can serve as a paradigm for addressing ethical problems, an argu- ment that is useful in showing engineering students how applied ethics and engineering are mutually reinforcing. Engineering design

is addressed further in Chapter 10 by Lord and Chen, as well as Chapter 11 by Atman, Borgford-Parnell, McDonnell, Eris, Delft, and Cardella, in this handbook.

Macroethics

As engineering ethics grew as an academic field, several authors, notably the ethicist John Ladd (1991), began to observe that the content of engineering ethics could include multiple perspectives. Drawing on the work of Ladd and others, Herkert argued (2001) that engineering ethics has three frames of reference – individual, profes- sional, and social – that can be divided into “microethics,” that is, ethical decision mak- ing by individual engineers and the inter- nal relationships of the engineering profes- sion, and “macroethics,” that is, the profes- sion’s collective social responsibility and the role of engineers in societal decisions about technology.

Engineering ethics research and teach- ing traditionally focused on microanalysis of individual ethical dilemmas in such areas as health and safety implications of engineer- ing design, conflicts of interest, integrity of test data, and trade secrets (Herkert, 2001), with little or no attention being paid to macroethical issues in engineering and still less to attempts at integrating microethi- cal and macroethical approaches to engi- neering ethics. Although the strong iden- tification of engineering ethics with pro- fessionalism has contributed significantly to the intellectual underpinnings of the field, by emphasizing issues internal to the pro- fession, it has also historically deflected the attention of engineering ethicists from macroethical issues (O’Connell & Herkert, 2004).

Engineering ethicists and engineering leaders have recently been turning their attention to macroethical issues. In 2003, for example, the National Academy of Engi- neering (NAE) convened a workshop on emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering at the initiative of then NAE President Bill Wulf. Wulf argues for the importance of macroethics largely on the

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

684 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

basis of the complexity of emerging tech- nologies:

Several things have changed, and are chang- ing, in engineering that raise macroethi- cal questions. I’m going to talk only about the one that is closest to my professional experience – complexity. The level of com- plexity of the systems we are engineering today, specifically systems involving informa- tion technology, biotechnology, and increas- ingly nanotechnology, is simply astonishing. When systems reach a sufficiently high level of complexity, it becomes impossible to predict their behavior. It’s not just hard to predict their behavior, it’s impossible to predict their behavior. (Wulf, 2004, p. 4)

The NAE subsequently established the Cen- ter for Engineering, Ethics and Society (CEES), which in addition to assuming responsibility for the Online Ethics Center in Engineering and Research (discussed ear- lier), has embarked on an ambitious pro- gram of addressing macroethical issues in engineering. The CEES’s first major project, for example, was a workshop on Engineer- ing Ethics, Social Justice and Sustainable Community Development held in 2008 that focused on both technical and nontech- nical perspectives on social and environ- mental justice and sustainable development. Recent examples of case studies that feature integration of microethical and macroeth- ical concepts are Newberry’s (2009) anal- ysis of Hurricane Katrina and Pfatte- icher’s (2010) book on the attack against and collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Environment and Sustainability

Especially in the United States, codes of engineering ethics are seen as expressions of the profession’s ethical commitments (Davis, 1988). Not until the 1990s did pro- visions regarding the environment and sus- tainable development begin appearing in the codes.

All modern engineering ethics codes con- tain what is known as the “paramountcy clause” which stipulates concern for the

public health, safety, and welfare as the “paramount” ethical obligation of an engi- neer. For example, consider the codes of the four major engineering disciplines:

ASME Code of Ethics of Engineers – “Engi- neers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.” (2009)

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Code of Ethics – “Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional duties.” (2003)

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Code of Ethics – “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.” (2011)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi- neers (IEEE) Code of Ethics – “ . . . to accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the envi- ronment . . . ” (2011)

Beyond the general obligation to uphold the public safety, health, and welfare, the current versions of these four codes also acknowledge the engineer’s responsibili- ties for the environment and/or sustainable development. The IEEE and the AIChE specifically list environmental protection in their paramountcy clause. In addition to including sustainable development in the paramountcy clause, the ASCE code’s first “Fundamental Principle” pledges engineers to “using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment.” The ASME Code contains a separate canon providing that “Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.”

In addition to the codes, engineering soci- eties have widely promoted the concept of sustainable development and the promi- nent role of engineering. For example, a document prepared by several of the U.S.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 685

engineering societies for the Johannesburg Earth Summit 2002 states:

Creating a sustainable world that provides a safe, secure, healthy life for all peoples is a pri- ority for the US engineering community. It is evident that US engineering must increase its focus on sharing and disseminating informa- tion, knowledge and technology that provides access to minerals, materials, energy, water, food and public health while addressing basic human needs. Engineers must deliver solutions that are technically viable, com- mercially feasible and, environmentally and socially sustainable. (American Association of Engineering Societies, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, ASME – Environmen- tal Engineering Division, National Academy of Engineering, & National Society of Profes- sional Engineers, 2001)

Engineering educators have risen to the challenge imposed by changes in the codes by incorporating concern for the environ- ment and sustainable development in the engineering curriculum, including the ethics curriculum. Notable contributions include a textbook by Vesilind and Gunn (1998), chapters in some of the better known engi- neering texts (e.g., Harris et al., 2009), and a number of journal articles (Allenby, 2004; Beder, 1994; Herkert, 1998; Woodhouse, 2001).

International Issues

Contributions to engineering ethics research and education in the area of international issues have been many and varied (see chapter 32 by Johri and Jesiek in this hand- book for additional information). For exam- ple, Harris (2004) called for internationaliz- ing engineering codes of ethics and suggested nine “culture transcending guidelines” and methods for applying the codes in specific contexts. Downey, Lucena, and Mitcham (2007) conducted a comparative study of the varying interest in engineering ethics in three countries based on the concept of “engineer- ing identities.” Several authors have focused on engineering ethics in the context of tech- nological disasters in developing countries

such as the Bhopal, India chemical leak (Unger, 1994).

An area of great concern in internation- alizing engineering ethics is the differ- ent expectations from country to country regarding bribery and corruption (Pritchard, 1998).

Ethicana (http://www.ethicana.org/), a video and training module developed under the sponsorship of several corporate and professional society sponsors, is a useful tool for discussing these issues with students and practitioners alike.

Although this chapter has primarily focused on engineering ethics education in the United States, the field has also flour- ished in several other countries. Notable examples include the Netherlands (van de Poel, Zandvoort, & Brumsen, 2001) and Japan (Fudano, 2009).

Research Ethics

With few exceptions (e.g., Whitbeck 1998), conventional treatments of engineering ethics have not included consideration of research ethics. This picture changed, how- ever, with passage of The America COM- PETES Act of 2007 that requires funding proposals to the NSF to include plans for “appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research” for all students and post-docs working on the projects.

The NSF’s Ethics Education for Engineer- ing and Science (EESE) program is focused on research and education in the area of graduate studies in engineering and science (Hollander, 2005). EESE-funded projects have addressed a number of issues and ped- agogical methods. For example, Newberry et al. (2009) focus on introducing engineer- ing ethics to international graduate students through the use of online instructional mate- rials. Canary, Herkert, Ellison, and Wet- more (2012) have developed and assessed four instructional models for combining micro-and macroethics in graduate educa- tion for engineers and scientists. The models considered include a stand-alone course, a hybrid face-to-face/online course, ethics

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

686 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

material embedded in a required course, and engagement of lab groups. Moore, Hart, Randall, and Nichols (2006) have built on their experience designing online material to supplement discussion of engineering ethics in undergraduate engineering classes to design similar materials for use with grad- uate engineering students.

Emerging Technologies

As engineering ethics advances as a field, one area demanding more attention is the ethical challenges of “emerging tech- nologies” (Herkert, 2011), which generally refers to developments in nanotechnology, neurotechnology (and cognitive science), biotechnology, and robotics, as well as advanced information and communication technology.

An example of the many hundreds of emerging technologies under development is “pervasive computing,” which expands the popular conception of the “smart house” to the entire built environment (perhaps even the natural environment). The Steven Spiel- berg film Minority Report includes a fictional representation of pervasive computing but pervasive computing is hardly science fic- tion. Its outlines are already taking shape in today’s world of smart phones (with built- in geographical positioning systems), micro- processors embedded in everyday objects, smart cards, radiofrequency identification tags and implants, and face recognition technology, all potentially interconnected in faster and faster wireless broadband net- works. Technical possibilities such as these pose daunting ethical challenges, especially in protecting personal privacy in a system designed to know who you are, where you are, and all of your personal preferences.

A key question being asked by ethi- cists is whether such emerging technolo- gies have unique characteristics that dis- tinguish them from previous technologies. Many observers who believe that to be the case point to such novel characteristics as accelerating pace of development, mind- boggling systems complexity, seemingly

unlimited reach, embeddedness, specificity, and malleability of form. Another factor often highlighted is that these technologies are not being developed in a vacuum but rather tend to converge with one another in both processes and products (Khushf, 2006; Moor, 2005; Nordmann, 2004; Wulf, 2004).

The engineers and computer scientists behind these technologies often seem quite convinced of the ethical imperative of their work, from battle field robots that can be programmed to follow the rules of war (Arkin, 2009) to autonomous machines that transcend human moral character in addi- tion to human intelligence (Hall, 2007). Ethicist James Moor (2005) and others have taken a more cautious view, arguing that emerging technologies require more than “ethics as usual,” including ethical thinking that is better informed, more proactive, and characterized by more and better interdisci- plinary collaboration among scientists, engi- neers, ethicists, and others.

In addressing emerging technologies in research and teaching, we can sometimes draw on concepts that have been applied successfully to previous technologies (Herk- ert, 2011). Moral imagination (Berne & Schummer, 2005), for example, is useful in addressing the complexity and malleability of emerging technologies; preventive ethics (Harris, 1995) provides useful lessons on the need for more proactive ethical analysis. New ethical tools are also needed. Debo- rah Johnson (2011), for example, and oth- ers, drawing on concepts from science and technology studies, have been arguing for an anticipatory ethics geared to the pace, complexity, and embeddedness of emerging technologies.

Social Issues

The past decade has seen an explosion of efforts aimed at expanding the focus of engineering ethics to include many top- ics heretofore not considered in traditional engineering ethics education. Many of these efforts fall into the general category of social issues. In addition to providing a window

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 687

into important areas of ethical concern, such endeavors also provide linkages to ABET EC 2000 criteria calling for “the broad edu- cation necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, eco- nomic, environmental, and societal context” and “a knowledge of contemporary issues” (ABET, 2007). Especially notable has been work in the area of gender issues (Adam, 2001), peace studies (Vesilind, 2009), social justice (Riley, 2008) and humanitarian engi- neering (Moskal, Skokan, Munoz, & Gosink, 2008). Chapter 17 by Riley, Slayton, & Paw- ley in this handbook provides an in-depth examination of social justice, women, and minorities in engineering.

Conclusion

During much of the early twenty-first cen- tury there has been a general movement to reflect on the conditions and challenges that engineers will face in the future. For exam- ple, the National Academy of Engineer- ing’s Engineer of 2020 (National Academy of Engineering, 2004) attempts to predict the roles that engineers will play in the future, while the follow-on report, Educat- ing the Engineer of 2020 (National Academy of Engineering, 2005) discusses how to edu- cate those future engineers. Similarly, the National Academy of Engineering devel- oped a list of fourteen grand challenges and opportunities for engineering that must be addressed in the century ahead and pub- lished their findings in an internet based report (National Academy of Engineering, 2011a). Although each of these reports men- tions professional ethics, by no means do they dwell on the topic extensively. Perhaps the reason is that in reality the ethical chal- lenges that modern engineers face have not changed significantly from those that sev- eral prior generations of engineers have been asked to consider. What has changed, in rel- atively recent times, is the potential modern engineers have for broader and more signif- icant impacts on society (locally, nationally, and globally).

With the ever increasing potential for impact in mind, it should be evident that ethics remains a critical component of engi- neering education and practice. The appli- cation of engineering knowledge will hold little value if not performed in an ethical manner. Accordingly, the performance of research related to the instruction, reten- tion, and application of engineering ethics is a field that deserves and requires continued funding, sustained exploration, and persis- tent dissemination of findings.

References

ABET. (2007). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.

Adam, A. (2001). Heroes or sibyls? Gender and engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(3), 39–46.

Allenby, B. (2004). Engineering and ethics for an anthropogenic planet. In National Academy of Engineering., National Academies (U.S.) & National Academies Press (U.S.) (Eds.), Emerg- ing technologies and ethical issues in engineer- ing: Papers from a workshop, October 14–15, 2003 (pp. 9–28). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

American Association of Engineering Societies, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, ASME – Environmental Engineering Division, National Academy of Engineering, & National Society of Professional Engineers. (2001). A declaration by the US engineering commu- nity to the world summit on sustainable devel- opment. Retrieved from http://www.ieeeusa .org/policy/POLICY/2002/02June24.html

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICE). (2003). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.aiche.org/About/Code.aspx

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2011). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http:// www.asce.org/Leadership-and-Management/ Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). (2009). Code of ethics of engi- neers. Retrieved from http://files.asme.org/ ASMEORG/Governance/3675.pdf

Arkin, R. C. (2009). Ethical robots in warfare. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 28(1), 30–33.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

688 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

Barry, B. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2009). Applied ethics in the engineering, health, business, and law professions: A comparison. Journal of Engi- neering Education, 98(4), 377–388.

Barry, B. E., & Ohland, M. (2012). ABET Criterion 3.f: How much curriculum content is enough? Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 369–392.

Basinger, K. S., Gibbs, J. C., & Fuller, D. (1995). Context and the measurement of moral judg- ment. International Journal of Behavioral Devel- opment, 18(3), 537–556.

Baum, R. J. (1980). Ethics and engineering curric- ula. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center, Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences.

Baura, G. D. (2006). Engineering ethics: An indus- trial perspective. Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Bebeau, M. J. (1994). Influencing the moral dimensions of dental practice. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvâaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 121–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bebeau, M. J. (2002). The defining issues test and the four component model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Edu- cation, 31(3), 271–295.

Beder, S. (1994). Role of technology in sustain- able development. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 13(4), 14–19.

Berne, R. W., & Schummer, J. (2005). Teaching societal and ethical implications of nanotech- nology to engineering students through science fiction. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Soci- ety, 25(6), 459–468.

Bird, S. J. (2003). Integrating ethics education at all levels. In W. Wulf (Ed.), Emerging technolo- gies and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop, October 14–15, 2003 (pp. 79–93). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Borenstein, J., Drake, M., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. (2008). The test of ethical sensitivity in science and engineering (TESSE): A discipline-specific assessment tool for awareness of ethical issues. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.

Borenstein, J., Drake, M., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. (2010). The engineering and science issues test (ESIT): A discipline-specific approach to assessing moral judgment. Science and Engineer- ing Ethics, 16(2), 387–407.

British Medical Association. (1984). The handbook of medical ethics. London: British Medical Asso- ciation.

Busby, J., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2003). The social ascription of obligations to engi- neers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(3), 363–376.

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead (1st ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Canary, H., Herkert, J. R., Ellison, K., & Wet- more, J. (2012). Microethics and macroethics in graduate education for scientists and engineers: Developing and assessing instructional models. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/ classifications/

Carpenter, D., Harding, T. S., Finelli, C. J., Montgomery, S. M., & Passow, H. J. (2006). Engineering students’ perceptions of and atti- tudes towards cheating. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 181–194.

Carpenter, D., Harding, T., Finelli, C., & Passow, H. (2004). Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behavior in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 311–324.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Apply- ing the seven principles for good practice in under- graduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The mea- surement of moral judgment. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Crain, W. C. (2005). Theories of development: Con- cepts and applications (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Davis, M. (1988). The special role of profession- als in business ethics. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 7(2), 51–62.

Davis, M. (1999a). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.

Davis, M. (1999b). Teaching ethics across the engineering curriculum. In Online Proceedings of International Conference on Ethics in Engi- neering and Computer Science. Cleveland, OH. Retrieved from http://www.onlineethics.org/ Education/instructessays/curriculum.aspx

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 689

Davis, M. (2001). Three myths about codes of engineering ethics. Technology and Society Mag- azine, IEEE, 20(3), 8–14.

Downey, G., Lucena, J., & Mitcham, C. (2007). Engineering ethics and identity: Emerging initiatives in comparative perspec- tive. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 463–487.

Drake, M. J., Griffin, P. M., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2005). Engineering ethical cur- ricula: Assessment and comparison of two approaches. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 223–231.

Duckett, L. J., Rowan, M., Ryden, M., Krich- baum, K., Miller, M., Wainwright, H., & Savik, K. (1997). Progress in the moral reasoning of baccalaureate nursing students between pro- gram entry and exit. Nursing Research, 46(4), 222–229.

Duckett, L. J., & Ryden, M. B. (1994). Education for ethical nursing practice. In Moral develop- ment in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 51–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

E3. (2007). Exploring ethical decision-making in engineering. Retrieved from http://www. engin.umich.edu/research/e3/index.html

Fielder, J. H., & Birsch, D. (1992). The DC-10 case: A study in applied ethics, technology, and soci- ety. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fleddermann, C. B. (2008). Engineering ethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educa- tion.

Fudano, J. (2009). Engineering ethics education and the role of engineering professional soci- eties: Toward the construction of value-sharing type ethics program. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1(0), 1–5.

Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gudeman, K. (2011). Illinois to develop a national center for ethics in science, mathematics, and engineering Retrieved from http://www.ece. illinois.edu/mediacenter/article.asp?id=1162

Gunn, A. S., & Vesilind, P. A. (2003). Hold paramount: The engineer’s responsibility to soci- ety. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson-Brooks/ Cole.

Hall, J. S. (2007). Beyond AI: Creating the consci- ence of the machine. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 255–279.

Harris, C. (1995). Explaining disasters: The case for preventive ethics. IEEE Technology and Soci- ety Magazine, 14(2), 22–27.

Harris, C. (2004). Internationalizing professional codes in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 503–521.

Harris, C., Davis, M., Pritchard, M., & Rabins, M. (1996). Engineering ethics: What? why? how? and when? Journal of Engineering Education, 85(2), 93–96.

Harris, C., Pritchard, M., & Rabins, M. (2000). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Harris, C., Pritchard, M., & Rabins, M. (2005). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Harris, C., Pritchard, M., & Rabins, M. (2009). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Hastings Center. (1980). The teaching of ethics in higher education: A report. Hastings-on- Hudson, NY: Hastings Center, Institute for Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences.

Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engi- neering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2), 223–229.

Herkert, J. R. (1998). Sustainable development, engineering and multinational corporations: Ethical and public policy implications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(3), 333–346.

Herkert, J. R. (2000a). Engineering education in the USA: Content, pedagogy and curricu- lum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(4), 303–313.

Herkert, J. R. (2000b). Social, ethical, and pol- icy implications of engineering: Selected readings. New York: IEEE Press.

Herkert, J. R. (2001). Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the role of professional soci- eties. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 403– 414.

Herkert, J. R. (2002). Continuing and emerg- ing issues in engineering ethics education. The Bridge, 32(3), 8–13.

Herkert, J. R. (2003). Professional societies, microethics, and macroethics: Product liabil- ity as an ethical issue in engineering design.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

690 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 163–167.

Herkert, J. R. (2011). Ethical challenges of emerg- ing technologies. In G. E. Marchant, A. B. R. & J. R. Herkert (Eds.), The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem (Vol. 7, pp. 35–44). New York, NY: Springer.

Hollander, R. (2005). Ethics education at NSF. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 509– 511.

Holsapple, M., Sutkus, J., Carpenter, D., Finelli, C., Burt, B., Ra, E., Harding, T., & Bielby, R. (2011, June). We can’t get no satisfaction!: The relationship between students’ ethical rea- soning and their satisfaction with engineering ethics education. Paper presented at the Ameri- can Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Institute or Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2011). IEEE code of ethics. Retrieved from http://ieee.org/portal/pages/iportals/aboutus/ ethics/code.html

Johnson, D. G. (2011). Software agents, antic- ipatory ethics and accountability. In G. E. Marchant, Allenby, B. R., & J. R. Herkert (Eds.), The growing gap between emerging tech- nologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem (1st ed., Vol. 7, pp. 61–76). New York, NY: Springer.

Kelly, M. J. (1980). Legal ethics and legal educa- tion. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Hastings Cen- ter, Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences.

Kemper, B. (2004). Evil intent and design respon- sibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 303–309.

Khushf, G. (2006). An ethic for enhanc- ing human performance through integrative technologies. In W. S. Bainbridge & M. C. Roco (Eds.), Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovations: Converging technologies in society (pp. 255–278). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2006). Handbook of moral development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Basel: Karger.

Ladd, J. (1991). The quest for a code of profes- sional ethics: An intellectual and moral con- fusion. In D. G. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering (pp. 130–136). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lambert, A. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Lattuca, L. R. (2007). More than meets the eye: Cur- ricular and programmatic effects on student learning. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 141–168.

Layton, E. T. (1971). The revolt of the engineers; Social responsibility and the American engineer- ing profession. Cleveland, OH: Press of Case Western Reserve University.

Lind, G. (1999). An introduction to the Moral Judgment Test. University of Konstanz. Retrieved from http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ FuF/SozWiss/fg-psy/ag-moral/pdf/Lind-1999 MJT-Introduction-E.pdf

Loui, M. C. (2005). Ethics and the development of professional identities of engineering stu- dents. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 383–390.

Luegehbiehl, H. C. (1991). Codes of ethics and the moral education of engineers. In D. G. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering (pp. 137–154). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1996). Ethics in engineering (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.

Moor, J. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(3), 111–119.

Moore, C., Hart, H., Randall, D. A., & Nichols, S. (2006). PRiME: Integrating professional responsibility into the engineering curricu- lum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(2), 273–289.

Moskal, B., Skokan, C., Munoz, D., & Gosink, J. (2008). Humanitarian engineering: Global impacts and sustainability of a curricular effort. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(1), 162–174.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapt- ing engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

engineering ethics 691

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2011a). Grand challenges for engineering. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringchall enges.org/

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2011b). Online ethics center: Mission. Re- trieved from http://www.onlineethics.org/about .aspx

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). (2011). NSPE code of ethics for engi- neers. Retrieved from http://www.nspe.org/ Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html

Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 343–351.

Newberry, B. (2009). Katrina: Macro-ethical issues for engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(3), 535–571.

Newberry, B., Austin, K., Lawson, W., Gorsuch, G., & Darwin, T. (2009). Acclimating interna- tional graduate students to professional engi- neering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1), 171–194.

Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging technologies: Shaping the future of European societies. Lux- embourg: European Commission and the Directorate-General for Research. Retrieved from http://www.philosophie.tu-darmstadt .de/media/philosophie_nanobu-ero/pdf_2/nord mannalfredconvergingtechnol-ogiesshapingthe futureofeuropeansocieties.pdf

O’Connell, B. M., & Herkert, J. R. (2004). Engi- neering ethics and computer ethics: Twins sep- arated at birth? Techne: Research in Ethics and Engineering, 8(1), 35–56.

Palmer, J., Cooper, D. E., & Bresler, L. (2001). Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present. London: Routledge.

Passow, H., Mayhew, M., Finelli, C., Harding, T., & Carpenter, D. (2006). Factors influenc- ing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Educa- tion, 47(6), 643–684.

Petroski, H. (2008, October). Founding societies. Prism, 18, 31.

Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2000). The Hyatt horror: Failure and responsibility in American engi- neering. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 14(2), 62–66.

Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2003). Depending on char- acter: ASCE shapes its first code of ethics. Jour- nal of Professional Issues in Engineering Educa- tion and Practice, 129(1), 21.

Pfatteicher, S. K. A. (2010). Lessons amid the rub- ble: An introduction to post-disaster engineering and ethics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pinkus, R. L. B., Shuman, L. J., Hummon, N. P., & Wolfe, H. (1997). Engineering ethics: Balanc- ing cost, schedule, and risk–lessons learned from the space shuttle. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Powers, C. W., & Vogel, D. (1980). Ethics in the education of business managers. Hastings- on-Hudson, NY: Hastings Center.

Pritchard, M. (1998). Professional responsibility: Focusing on the exemplary. Science and Engi- neering Ethics, 4(2), 215–233.

Rabins, M. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates: Why? What? How? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(3), 291–302.

Rest, J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvâaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychol- ogy and applied ethics (pp. 1–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rest, J. R. (1999). Postconventional moral think- ing: A Neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). A Neo-Kohlbergian approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychol- ogy Review, 11(4), 291–324.

Riley, D. (2008). Engineering and social justice. Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology, and Society, 7, 1–163.

Roeser, S. (2010). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engi- neering Ethics, 1–13.

Rosen, B., & Caplan, A. L. (1980). Ethics in the undergraduate curriculum. Hastings-on- Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center.

Seebauer, E. G., & Barry, R. L. (2001). Funda- mentals of ethics for scientists and engineers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Self, D. J., & Ellison, E. M. (1998). Teaching engi- neering ethics: Assessment of its influence on moral reasoning skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(1), 29–34.

Self, D. J., Wolinsky, F. D., Baldwin, J., & DeWitt C. (1989). The effect of teaching medical ethics on medical students’ moral reasoning. Aca- demic Medicine, 62(12), 755–759.

Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “Professional Skills” – Can they be taught? Can they

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

692 cambridge handbook of engineering education research

be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55.

Smith, J. H., Harper, P. M., & Burgess, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). Engineering ethics: Concepts, viewpoints, cases, and codes (2nd ed.). Lub- bock, TX: National Institute for Engineering Ethics.

Sutton, R. E. (1992). Review of the defining issues test. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The mental measurements yearbook. Lin- coln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measure- ments.

Unger, S. H. (1994). Controlling technology: Ethics and the responsible engineer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

van de Poel, I., Zandvoort, H., & Brumsen, M. (2001). Ethics and engineering courses at Delft University of Technology: Contents, educa- tional setup and experiences. Science and Engi- neering Ethics, 7(2), 267–282.

van Gorp, A., & van de Poel, I. (2001). Ethical considerations in engineering design processes. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(3), 15–22.

Vesilind, P. A. (2009). Engineering peace and jus- tice: The responsibility of engineers to society (1st ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Vesilind, P. A., & Gunn, A. S. (1998). Engineer- ing, ethics, and the environment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vogt, C. M. (2008). Faculty as a critical juncture in student retention and performance in engi-

neering programs. Journal of Engineering Edu- cation, 97(1), 27–36.

Weil, V. (2003). Ethics across the curricu- lum: Preparing engineering and science fac- ulty to introduce ethics in their teaching. In W. Wulf (Ed.), Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop, October 14–15, 2003 (pp. 79–93). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Whitbeck, C. (1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Woodhouse, E. J. (2001). Curbing overconsump- tion: Challenge for ethically responsible engi- neering. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(3), 23–30.

Wujek, J. W., & Johnson, D. G. (1992). How to be a good engineer. Washington, DC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Eng- ineers.

Wulf, W. A. (2004). Keynote Address. In W. Wulf (Ed.), Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop, Octo- ber 14–15, 2003, National Academy of Engineer- ing (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Yadav, A., & Barry, B. E. (2009). Using case-based instruction to increase ethical understanding in engineering: What do we know? What do we need? International Journal of Engineering Edu- cation 25(1), 138–143.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.041 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 05 Nov 2021 at 18:18:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at