Session T1B
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, nvantyne@mines.edu, mbrunhar@mines.edu
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,
Occidental 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, Occidental 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
7th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference
T1B-1
August 3 – 4, 2015, Roanoke, VA
Session T1B
stakeholders involved in the Occidental Engineering case
study analysis are shown in Table 1 below:
Stakeholder Role
Frequent Air Traveler
Air Traffic Controller
Senior Engineer at
Occidental
Protagonist
Engineer’s
Supervisor
Owner/Founder of
Occidental
Engineering
Junior Engineer at
Occidental
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 Occidental’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 Occidental’s software.
You have worked at Occidental 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 Occidental 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 Occidental 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 Occidental 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 Occidental’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.
7th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference
T1B-2
August 3 – 4, 2015, Roanoke, VA
Session T1B
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.
type scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to
“Strongly Agree”)
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:
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.
2.
3.
4.
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)
The workshop leader enabled you to develop an
understanding of ethical conduct by engineers: (5point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly
Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”)
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
“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”)
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 Likert-
7th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference
T1B-3
Workshop Leader Enabled You to
Develop an Understanding of
Ethical Conduct by Engineers
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Disagree
8% 0%
Agree nor
Disagree
1%
Strongly
Agree
15%
Agree
76%
FIGURE 1
WORKSHOP LEADER EFFECTIVENESS
August 3 – 4, 2015, Roanoke, VA
Session T1B
Case Study and Discussion
Provided WaysStrongly
to Respond to an
Agree
Issue Strongly
with No One
Clear Answer
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
0%
18%
0%
5%
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
77%
FIGURE 2
CASE STUDY AND DISCUSSION EFFECTIVENESS
Workshop Slides Provided Ways
to Respond to an Issue with No
One Clear Answer
Strongly
Disagree
0%
Strongly
Agree
0%
Agree
4% Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
10%
Disagree
86%
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.
7th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference
T1B-4
August 3 – 4, 2015, Roanoke, VA
Session T1B
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, 1989.
[2] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology,
"ABET Code of Ethics of Engineers," Accreditation Board
for Enginering and Technology, 1997. [Online]. Available:
http://wadsworth.cengage.com/philosophy_d/templates/stud
ent_resources/0534605796_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, 1988.
[4] Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, "Ethics Education
Library, Occidental Engineering Case Study, Part 1," Santa
Clara University, June 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/
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, 2014.
7th First Year Engineering Experience (FYEE) Conference
T1B-5
August 3 – 4, 2015, Roanoke, VA