How To Teach An Engineering Ethics Course

Transcription

1 Is This Real? Making the Study of Engineering Ethics Relevant to the Current Generation of Engineering Students Natalie Van Tyne and Maria Brunhart-Lupo Colorado School of Mines, Abstract Our one-hour engineering ethics workshop, part of our introductory engineering design course, includes a discussion of the ABET Code of Ethics for Engineers, followed by a case study of an ethical dilemma in an industrial workplace. During the Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 semesters, we replaced the video case study (Gilbane Gold) with the written case study, Engineering, which was discussed first by students in their project teams, and then with the entire class. A common set of narrated slides was also presented to introduce the subject of engineering ethics within the context of everyday workplace issues. An assessment was administered to determine how well the students understood the meaning of ethical responsibility and could identify appropriate ways to respond when ethically difficult decisions need to be made. Students were asked to list two primary behaviors or actions that engineers must follow when performing their professional duties, as well as give their impressions of the workshop content and case study. During the workshop, students answered the question, What would you do in this situation? in their discussions, as well as to advise the protagonist what to do from the viewpoint of another stakeholder, such as a fellow company employee, member of the same industry, or member of the public. Assessment results varied widely, and demonstrated that most of our students remained unwilling to accept the possibility of more than one right answer to an ethical situation. However, some of the students recommended a different action by the protagonist if they were acting as another stakeholder (i.e., involved party) than if they considered only the protagonist s point of view. Index Terms Active learning, case studies, critical thinking, engineering ethics. INTRODUCTION Mention the topic of engineering ethics to a class, and a common reaction might range from What is this about? to Not another boring lecture! However, students who have a habit of thinking creatively or critically might wonder what is different about engineering ethics as opposed to other types of moral philosophy. Engineering ethics is the study of moral issues and decisions confronting individuals and organizations involved in engineering. [1] As we have observed in commonly used case studies in this area, responsibility for ethical decision making lies with the individual engineer, although any number of other engineers, managers, scientists or other professionals and non-professionals may be involved or affected by an often difficult or controversial decision. That is the major rationale that we use with students to provide relevance to the study of this aspect of engineering. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Our first year engineering design course involves a one-hour engineering ethics workshop, beginning with an introduction to the ABET Code of Ethics for Engineers [2], followed by a case study of an ethical dilemma in an industrial workplace. A set of narrated slides is also presented to introduce the subject of engineering ethics, and to help guide the discussion. These slides are to be presented alongside the case study to help establish relevance. Approximately twenty minutes are allocated to the slides and to the case study, while the remainder of the time is dedicated to open discussion as a class. The video case study, (Gilbane Gold) [3] involves a situation where a junior engineer is asked to approve waste water analysis results that he believes to be above legal limits. During the past academic year, we replaced this case with the written case study, Engineering [4], wherein a software engineer is asked to approve a program for air traffic controllers that contains minor flaws that would affect its performance, but only until certain conditions not present in the next round of testing. Both cases involved potential harm to the public, although it was not entirely clear what the immediacy or extent of harm would be in either case. The video was replaced by the written case study as to video was determined to be too outdated and an updated format was needed to engage the students. In addition to changing the case study, we also incorporated stakeholder interests: i.e, how would certain other professionals or members of the public involved in or affected by the process or outcome of this case advise the protagonist as to what to do? Descriptions of the T1B-1

2 stakeholders involved in the Engineering case study analysis are shown in Table 1 below: Stakeholder Role Frequent Air Traveler Air Traffic Controller Senior Engineer at Protagonist Engineer s Supervisor Owner/Founder of Engineering Junior Engineer at Engineering Spouse of the Junior Engineer Local Resident and Amateur Pilot TABLE I STAKEHOLDER DESCRIPTIONS Description You are a frequent traveler for both work and pleasure. You usually fly with major airlines from main airports, however, you occasionally travel short distances which require flights to and from small, local airports including the one where the FAA would perform live tests of s software. You are an air traffic controller with over 20 years in this profession working in several high-pressure, high-profile airports. Last year you decided to relocate to an area with a small airport, where you can utilize your extensive experience without the stressful environment of major airports. This is the airport where the FAA would perform live tests of s software. You have worked at Engineering for 18 years. You are well established at this firm and have progressed to a comfortable and respected position in the Aerospace Division. While there is only five years until you are eligible for a generous retirement package, your job is vulnerable due to recent financial cutbacks, and the fact that you are one of the highest paid employees in your division, in view of your knowledge and experience. You are a project manager in the Aerospace Division of Engineering. You have worked at this firm for 9 years and devoted much of your time and energy to its success. Only a few people in the firm know that the idea to lowball the bid for this project was yours. You assured those people that this was a golden opportunity for the company and that you would make sure that the project was successful. You have developed many close relationships with other employees. Some of them are your friends with whom you spend time outside of work and whose families you have come to care for as well. Their jobs, along with your job and reputation, are intimately connected to the success of this project. You started the company with your partners approximately 20 years ago and grew the business from its small and local beginnings to the massive firm that it is today. You could easily retire but choose to maintain a role in the firm. You are proud of the respectable and successful business you helped to create. You are a junior engineer at Engineering. You were hired 6 months ago after a grueling job search. Having recently graduated from a highly prestigious engineering university, you approach the engineering field with enthusiasm and moral vigor you are going to change the world! You want the world to be a better place for all people, but especially for your spouse and baby. You are the spouse of a junior engineer at Engineering. Both of you are young and ambitious, but you have decided to put your career on hold in order to take care of your new baby. Your spouse works in the Aerospace Division of the firm, but is not working directly on the Operation Safe Skies project. In a highly competitive job market, you are happy that your spouse was recently hired for this job, but the salary is just barely enough to support your family. You live in house located near the small airport where you keep your own Cessna airplane and where the FAA would be testing s software. Due to your busy work and family schedule, you have not had much opportunity lately to fly your plane. However, your house is located on the flight path of many of the planes exiting/entering the airport and the sound of them reminds you of how much you love flying and fuels your desire to get back into the air. You are planning a number of day trips in the near future. T1B-2

3 The aforementioned stakeholders were developed by one of the faculty members of the EPICS program, Melanie Brandt, who went over the case and then developed each profile based on an individual that might be affected by the scenario, but may or may not immediately apparent to the reader. Each faculty mentor then used these profiles in their workshop session, so all of the students were exposed to the same set up and same questions. Using this approach, we pursued the following research question: Does the analysis of several stakeholders views in an engineering ethics case study better fulfill our learning outcome for ethical responsibility at a first-year level, as shown by student reactions to the workshop content and delivery methods? By asking students to empathize with others who would be affected by the protagonist s decision, we attempted to make the situation more real for them, and therefore engender a greater sense of commitment to ethical decision making in the engineering workplace. The hope was to encourage the students to express their full opinion of what was the ethical choice and why, for a person in a particular situation related to the scenario, and then be able to use the reasoning and the Engineering Code of Conduct in their own career. As it is standard for all engineering students to take an ethics course at some point in their career often in the freshman year the relevance of the study and how it could be applied in their careers had to be made apparent, while still focusing on how to follow the most ethical route through a situation. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A survey was distributed to all of the EPICS 151 classes an average of two weeks after a workshop was conducted in class on the ethical responsibilities of engineers. The students also participated in an in class exercise in which they discussed the varying perspectives of individuals involved in the ethical dilemma. Our survey asked the following questions: 1. According to the ABET Code of Ethics for Engineers, what are the two primary behaviors or actions that engineers must follow when performing their professional duties? (Answers are free response) 2. The workshop leader enabled you to develop an understanding of ethical conduct by engineers: (5- point Likert-type scale ranging from to ) 3. The case study and resulting discussion provided an effective means for you to consider how you would respond to an issue that has no one clear answer: (5-point Likert-type scale ranging from to ) 4. The workshop slides provided an effective means for you to consider how you would respond to an issue that has no one clear answer: (5-point Likerttype scale ranging from to ) The surveys were then collected and all responses were tabulated. Of the 521 students enrolled in the course, 98% of the students took the survey. The free response questions were sorted by words that were synonyms to keep the list to a reasonable length that could be easily analyzed. The questions that allowed for one response to be circled per question were tabulated. RESULTS Results were compiled from 496 students who provided valid responses for both the free response question and the statements with Likert scales. The top five responses to the first question, According to the ABET Code of Ethics for Engineers, what are the two primary behaviors or actions that engineers must follow when performing their professional duties? were honesty/truth, integrity, moral responsibility, and safety. At least one of these terms, or a synonym for it, was found in 97% of the responses. An example of a synonym was the term, do not lie for honesty/truth. The next three survey questions were used to determine how effective the workshop content and delivery method were in helping students to develop an understanding of ethical responsibility and conduct. Results are given in the following: Workshop Leader Enabled You to Develop an Understanding of Ethical Conduct by Engineers Neither nor 1% 8% 76% 15% FIGURE 1 WORKSHOP LEADER EFFECTIVENESS T1B-3

4 Case Study and Discussion Provided Ways to Respond to an Issue with No One Clear Answer 5% 18% Neither nor 77% FIGURE 2 CASE STUDY AND DISCUSSION EFFECTIVENESS Workshop Slides Provided Ways to Respond to an Issue with No One Clear Answer 86% 4% Neither nor 1 FIGURE 3 EFFECTIVENESS OF ETHICS BRIEFING PRIOR TO CASE STUDY DISCUSSION These results show that the majority of the students are selecting relevant terms in response to the question regarding the primary behaviors or actions of engineers. These terms do appear in the code and are highlighted as key terms throughout the presentation. The students are either recalling the terms, or they are referring to their notes, but either possibility shows that they did pay attention to the behaviors marked as belonging to an ethical and responsible engineer. When we conducted this survey in prior semesters, using the same free-response question, the results were similar: honesty, safety and integrity were highly emphasized, and moral responsibility was expressed as improve human welfare/society. [5] Responses to the second question, referring to capability of the workshop leader varied, with most agreeing (84%) that their instructor did enable them to develop an understanding of the ethical conduct concerning engineers. Based on comments attached to some sheets, we noted that several instructors were apparently more engaging than others; other responses indicated that certain instructors were struggling to clarify certain aspects of the case. Question three, referring to the case study and the discussion, enhancing the student s ability to provide an answer to a situation that may not have a clear correct answer had the majority of respondents choosing the neither agree nor disagree answer (77%). According to the attached comments on some students sheets, a significant number of students, particularly those who chose to comment, felt that they needed to know the actual outcome of the situation in order to determine if they had been able to figure out the correct answer. This indicates that they were are uncomfortable with the process of having to choose what to do, state their answer publically and debate with their classmates without the benefit (or crutch) of knowing the actual outcome. The last question about the effectiveness of the slides shows that the slides were not well received overall (86%). It is not clear as to whether this was influenced more by the quality of the slides or just by the fact that they were narrated slides. Students who commented about the slides indicated that it was necessary to present them in the classroom; online access to the slides would have been sufficient. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Students have already learned about situations where there is no one right answer through the design methodology practiced in this course; therefore, we intend that exposure to this workshop would help them to grasp how this principle extends beyond the classroom and into the professional world. First year students may, or may not, realize that everyone s interpersonal relations and actions are influenced by their own fundamental values and knowledge of how to do the right thing. What complicates these situations is not only the fact that multiple solutions or actions are possible, but that two or more ethical principles may be in conflict. Our results showed that many students remained unwilling to accept that there could have been more than one right answer to the ethical dilemma, even after considering the views of other stakeholders. There could be a limit to their current capability to work within the intentionally incomplete context that was given to them. It would seem that it is only with repeated instances of make your own assumptions and decision, already that students finally understand that not all ethical issues, like open-ended design problems, have singular solutions. T1B-4

5 Our workshop was conducted early in the second half of the semester, after students have become familiar enough with the design methodology of the course to have learned how to deal with incomplete information and the necessity to make assumptions in order to solve a problem. Therefore, the presence of an ethical problem with incomplete information should be seen to not be totally foreign. However, assessment results for the effect of stakeholder analysis indicate that this student population considered it to be of marginal benefit to their understanding of engineering ethics, but this does not mean that this type of analysis should not be further developed. Additional exploration of the impact of multiple positions that are driven by motives, biases and self-interest is needed, perhaps in a modification of the workshop to utilize more concise ethical dilemmas and more student input into their analysis. There is clearly a need for greater student engagement, as it was shown that a video is not sufficient for introducing the topic, than we have incorporated before the subject of engineering ethics will be more real for our students. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to thank Melanie Brandt, Adjunct Instructor, for her identification and description of the stakeholders used in this study. REFERENCES [1] M. S. R. Martin, Ethics in Engineering, 2nd Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, [2] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, "ABET Code of Ethics of Engineers," Accreditation Board for Enginering and Technology, [Online]. Available: ent_resources/ _harris/cases/codes/abet.htm. [Accessed 3 January 2014]. [3] N. S. o. P. E. National Institute for Engineering Ethics, "Gilbane Gold, a Video Case Study," National Society of Professional Engineers, Alexandria, VA, [4] Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, "Ethics Education Library, Engineering Case Study, Part 1," Santa Clara University, June [Online]. Available: occidental_engineering/occidental_engineering.html. [Accessed 31 May 2015]. [5] N. C.T. Van Tyne and M.E. Brunhart-Lupo, "Ethics for the "Me" Generation - How "Millennial" Enginering Students View Ethical Responsibility in the Engineering Profession," in American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN, T1B-5