essay on engineering ethics

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Why Are Ethics Important in Engineering?

• 16 Feb 2023

Engineers are vital to shaping our world. Their decisions have far-reaching consequences—typically related to risk management. As such, it’s essential for engineers to hold themselves to a high standard.

In a survey published by the International Conference on Engineering Education (IEEE) , 92 percent of respondents said ethical issues exist in engineering and could be improved. This kind of sentiment has led companies to examine their ethical standards, particularly in relation to engineering leadership.

If you’re interested in learning about how ethics shape engineering, here’s an overview of the industry’s ethical standards, why they’re important, and the role they play in leadership.

Access your free e-book today.

What Are Engineering Ethics?

Engineering ethics are principles and guidelines engineers follow to ensure their decision-making is aligned with their obligations to the public, their clients, and the industry. The National Society of Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) code of ethics outlines the standards of ethical behavior engineers should follow in their professional lives. Those include:

• Protecting public safety
• Only performing tasks they’re qualified to do
• Being honest in public communications
• Remaining faithful and trustworthy to employers
• Acting with integrity

These principles are designed to help you, as an engineer, make ethical decisions in your work and promote responsible use of industry technologies.

7 Reasons Ethics Matter in Engineering

Trust is required between engineers and the public, which is why it’s crucial for you to understand the importance of acting ethically. Here are seven reasons why ethics matter in engineering.

1. Promotes Safety

The NSPE’s code of ethics requires you to prioritize public safety in your work.

For instance, you’re expected to notify employers and clients when their judgment is overruled because of dangerous circumstances or when documents don’t conform with applicable standards. Doing so can prevent harm to individuals and communities and ensure your work meets the highest safety and reliability standards.

In addition to ethical considerations, there’s a business case for safety in the workplace. Prioritizing safety not only protects employees and customers but also improves productivity and reduces costs associated with accidents and injuries. According to Liberty Mutual’s 2021 Workplace Safety Index , U.S. employers spend more than $1 billion per week on serious, nonfatal workplace injuries.

2. Enhances Quality

Engineering ethics are also critical to improving your quality of work. According to NSPE’s code of ethics, you should only perform tasks that closely align with your education and experience.

This is important when working toward an engineering leadership position. For instance, as an organizational leader , you’ll often manage individuals who are experts in areas you know little about. You’ll need to shift from a specialist to a generalist management style by focusing on relationships, adding value by enabling work, considering the bigger picture, and relying on executive presence. The goal is to enable specialists on your team to do their highest-quality work.

The “leader as architect” concept—discussed in the Harvard Business School Online course Organizational Leadership taught by HBS professors Anthony Mayo and Joshua Margolis—refers to your role in enabling work to happen rather than doing it yourself.

“Since leaders can’t personally make those conditions happen for each person every day across a big organization, they don the hat of the architect,” Mayo says in Organizational Leadership . “And their work is to use a set of organizational components to create and sustain motivation, competence, and coordination.”

3. Improves Public Opinion

Ethics also help improve public opinion about engineering professions.

For example, the NSPE’s code of ethics requires you to be honest in your public communications through objective, truthful statements free of private interest, deception, or misrepresentation. Honesty in public relations is crucial to building trust. It’s even more critical for you as an engineer because your decisions directly affect the public’s safety and well-being.

In an era where communication skills are increasingly valued, it’s crucial to act ethically in your interactions with the public. Doing so can help improve perceptions about the engineering industry and demonstrate your commitment to ethical, responsible behavior.

4. Safeguards the Company’s Interests

Adhering to engineering ethics can also help protect your company’s interests.

The NSPE’s code of ethics discourages you from disclosing sensitive or confidential company information without explicit consent, obtaining employment or advancement with improper methods, and unethically harming other engineers’ professional reputations.

By adhering to these principles, you can help protect your firm’s interests—as well as your team's—and ensure you contribute to its success.

5. Fosters Sustainability

Engineering ethics promote sustainability by requiring you to consider your work's long-term impact on the environment and society. Additionally, sustainability is vital to modern business because it can improve your organization’s reputation, increase growth opportunities, and boost financial performance.

If you struggle to understand sustainability's context in your role as an engineer, consider the triple bottom line , a concept that asserts businesses should go beyond financial performance and measure their social and environmental impacts. If you consider profit, people, and the planet in your daily work, you’re more likely to follow the industry’s ethical standards around sustainability.

6. Protects Other Engineers

Engineering ethics aren’t just meant to protect employers, clients, and the public. They also help protect individual engineers by discouraging all industry professionals from engaging in unethical or illegal behavior for their benefit.

The NSPE’s code of ethics specifically states that “engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement by untruthfully criticizing other engineers.” It also specifies that “engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.”

These guidelines are especially important when considering your team’s performance and productivity. Fostering an environment that promotes employee engagement can prevent negative dynamics from corrupting your workplace.

7. Secures Company Assets

Engineering ethics help ensure your team members and organizational leaders act in ways that protect your company’s intellectual property and confidential information.

The designs, inventions, and writings created by your team are often recognized as the property of either your client or the individual responsible for those assets. You must acknowledge such ownership agreements prior to beginning work. In doing so, you can prevent theft and misuse of your company’s assets and protect its investments.

The Importance of Ethical Leadership

Leading ethically is critical to long-term success in the engineering industry. Ethical leaders model honorable behavior, set an example, and foster cultures of integrity and respect.

“A leader needs to be adaptable and step out of their comfort zone if they want to foster a culture in which others do the same,” Mayo says in Organizational Leadership .

By adhering to the tenets of ethical leadership, you can hire individuals whose principles align with your organization’s values.

“You want to look for individuals whose values, attitudes, and skills are consistent with what your organization needs and cares about,” Margolis says in the course.

Elevate Your Organizational Leadership as an Engineer

Ethics are crucial in engineering. They not only promote quality work but also encourage you to operate safely and maintain a high standard of ethical responsibility.

As an organizational leader, you often dictate your company’s culture and values. Understanding engineering ethics—and the business skills needed to apply them—is essential to your success.

By furthering your education through an organizational leadership course , you can learn how to adapt to constantly evolving responsibilities and become an effective leader .

Do you want to learn more about how to lead ethically? Enroll in our online certificate course Organizational Leadership —one of our leadership and management courses —and develop in-demand business skills that can benefit your engineering career. If you aren’t sure which course is right for you, download our free flowchart to explore your options.

About the Author

Featured Articles

Engineering Ethics and Its Impact on Society

Dr. William Marcy & Jane Rathbun, Texas Tech University

William M. Marcy, PhD, PE

Jane B. Rathbun, BS, MBA

The National Institute for Engineering Ethics

Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409

Introduction

This article attempts to address three fundamental issues regarding engineering ethics; (1) engineering ethics education, (2) ethical decision making in professional practice and (3) protecting the rights of engineers to make ethical decisions. 

The public has a right to expect ethical conduct of all professionals. The role of engineering and its impact on the health, welfare and safety of the public cannot be overstated. Ethical and professional conduct on the part of engineers requires an often delicate balance of moral reasoning, standards, legal relevance, safety, costs, benefits and risk assessment. [1]

The Association for Practical and Professional Ethics includes engineering ethics as a field of applied ethics that consists of a system of moral principles that apply to the practice of engineering. Engineering ethics sets forth the obligations of engineers to society, to their clients, and to the profession. [2]

Ethical dilemmas faced by practicing engineers are more difficult to resolve than is generally understood, and they are typically multidimensional. They impact a wide range of stakeholders and decisions about ‘doing the right thing’ often fall into a gray area that is ambiguous at best, and catastrophic at worst. It is important to understand the nuances of different approaches to ethical evaluation and decision making. A decision that is the right thing to do for a large majority of stakeholders may have a disproportionately negative impact on a small minority. The ethical principle of ‘utilitarianism’ - which takes the position that the right decision is the one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of stakeholders- does not necessarily result in the best ethical choice. Alternative ethical principles such as ‘respect for persons’ and ‘virtue ethics’ may yield better ethical decisions when resolving complex dilemmas. Respect for persons recognizes that everyone has the right to ethical treatment regardless of their status in society.  Virtue ethics recognizes that engineers, by virtue of their specialized knowledge, have obligations to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public. A key observation is that ‘intuition’ is often not a reliable method for making ethical decisions. [3]

A serious conflict of interest arises when a design engineer knows the right ethical decision to make but upper management overrides that decision. After exhausting all appeals to upper management, the engineer may be confronted with a significant personal dilemma. The engineer may consider “whistle blowing.” [4]

Even though there are various laws in place to protect whistle blowers, they rarely shield the person involved from potentially catastrophic financial and career risk.  The engineer may be required to make a difficult, and unfair choice between fulfilling their obligations as an engineer and putting their family’s financial well-being at risk. 

“The very societies and institutions which stress ethical values that are grounded in personal responsibility and public accountability have been weak in protecting whistle-blowers from harassment, dismissals, and the expense of law suits. In making this point, Bertrand G. Berube, an engineer, a former GSA regional administrator, a whistle blower, told American Society for Engineering Education members at their 1987 meeting: “If you blow the whistle on a boss, you are likely to be without a job for three to four months and legal fees will be in the range of $30-40 thousand; for blowing the whistle on a government agency, you may expect to be out of work for one to two years and your legal fees may run from $125-$150 thousand.  If you blow the whistle on the political administration in power, you may be off the job for four to seven years and legal fees may be in the $400K­ to $550K range.” [3] [5]

“That is a high price to pay for subsequent recognition by your professional society for your dedication to professionalism, but it, unfortunately, has been the experience of many who chose to exercise their right to blow a whistle when they felt that engineering ethics demanded such drastic action.” [6]

A Brief History of Engineering as a Profession

Engineering ethics has its roots in both engineering and philosophy. Engineering as a profession can trace its roots to the medieval system of training apprentices in skills associated with specific crafts. These craftsmen came together to form “guilds’ whose membership signified not only trusted expertise, but also provided a measure of control over who was permitted to offer their skills, products and services to the public and how those services were to be offered. Eventually, engineering disciplines became sufficiently specialized to develop professional societies and an associated ‘body of knowledge’ was integrated into each discipline. [7]

“To become a member of Craft Guilds in the Middle Ages a person would have to work through three phases to become a member of a Medieval Craft Guild starting as an apprentice.” [8]

  It is worth remembering that before World War II, engineering as a profession in the U.S. was learned primarily through apprenticeship under practicing engineers. As the training of engineers evolved to require more mathematical and scientific knowledge, college education became the necessary pathway to becoming an engineer. Even with a college degree in engineering, a specified period of professional practice under the supervision of licensed professional engineers is required in order for an individual to become licensed to offer engineering services to the public.  [9]

  “Internationally, the first engineering professional societies began in France.  French army engineers organized as the Corps du Genie in 1672, and the French national highway department’s engineers formed the Corps des Ponts et Chaussees in 1716. More than a century later, in England, the Institution of Civil Engineers was founded in 1818.  This was followed in 1847 by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

Early engineering societies in the North America developed in the following order:

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1852; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, 1871; American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1880; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 1884;American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1908. 

These groups were subsequently joined by the National Council of State Boards of Engineering, Examiners, American Society for Engineering Education, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, the National Society of Professional Engineers, Canada’s Engineering Institute and a number of other pertinent professional societies.”  [3]

  Evolution of Engineering Ethics as an Academic Subject

Fortunately, the present day engineering curriculum has evolved, as academic accrediting bodies such as the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology now require ethics to be taught formally in colleges and universities. [10]. Ethics is also a significant component of the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam. Professional licensing boards now require continuing education in engineering ethics for practicing engineers.  [9]

One difficult aspect to teaching engineering ethics is that by nature, the subject often deals with ambiguous situations that are conceptually difficult for people to understand and assess.  In addition, the decision to do the right thing may necessitate that an engineer takes substantial personal and professional risk. Codes of ethics provide a framework for making decisions, however, they tend to be backward looking, and rapid advances in technology often result in ethical dilemmas that have not been anticipated. In these instances, well educated individuals are often able to reach rationally sound decisions about the right thing to do, however these decisions may be constrained by variables that are in direct conflict with the individual and/or other stakeholders. 

Another difficulty related to teaching engineering ethics is that many engineering faculty may lack practical, real-world experience with the complex ethical dilemmas encountered in professional practice. This lack of experience is often coupled with a reluctance to deal with abstract philosophical concepts and educational institutions may find it difficult to find faculty both willing and competent to teach engineering ethics. 

 Codes of Ethics

  Engineering codes of ethics are the rules of practice that provide a framework for making ethical decisions based on historical case studies where poorly made decisions have been shown to result in negative outcomes. While engineering codes of ethics are similar across disciplines, each may have a slightly different historical perspective. Nevertheless, there are strong similarities between all engineering codes of ethics. [11]

The fundamental cannons and rules of practice found on the National Society of Professional Engineers web site are worth comparing with the codes of ethics developed by individual professional societies. Specifically, all areas and disciplines of engineering share a common doctrine to “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” 

“Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

• Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
• Perform services only in areas of their competence.
• Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
• Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
• Avoid deceptive acts.
• Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” [1]

  Engineering Ethics and Technological Change

Modern society is dramatically impacted by advances in technology. Current examples include, but are certainly not limited to, self-driving automobiles, electric automobiles, autonomous robots, artificial intelligence, broadband internet, social media, cyber warfare, remotely piloted drones, smart phones, tablet computers, deep sea drilling, ‘fracking’, etc. The list is endless and we see changes on a seemingly daily basis. One aspect of many of the recent and prominently technological changes is a vast array of unintended consequences that the designers never anticipated. Unintended consequences frequently overshadow the anticipated benefits designers of a new technology had in mind. While many unintended consequences may have tremendous positive impacts on society, others may not. Ethical considerations must be included in every step of the design, documentation and deployment process to help anticipate and mitigate negative consequences. One approach to accomplishing this is to conduct a Social Impact Analysis (SIA) as a formal part of the engineering design documentation process. This is a multi-dimensional team effort that is not restricted to engineers. The team should include representatives from all relevant organizational stakeholders in addition to a person whose education, focus and expertise are specific to ethical process evaluation and decision making. 

 Social Impact Analysis

Social Impact Analysis is a forward looking methodology that analyzes the potential ethical consequences of a design, product or concept (DPC). A general outline of the steps required to develop an SIA is as follows: [12]

• What need is it intended to fill?
• Who are the parties responsible for creating and deploying the DPC?
• Who will be held responsible if the design, product or concept fails?
• Who are the stakeholders, both direct and indirect?
• What are the risks?
• What are the costs?
• What are the benefits?
• What is the impact on the environment?
• What can be done to mitigate or eliminate negative consequences?
• What can be done to maximize positive consequences?
• Provide a critical discussion for each potential ethical consequence.
• What can be done to ethically minimize risks to the stakeholders?
• What can be done to ethically minimize costs to the stakeholders?
• What can be done to ethically maximize the benefits to the stakeholders?
• What is the right thing to do regarding each decision?

It is often necessary to make changes to the SIA analysis as the design and deployment process evolves. Most often, the earlier in the design and deployment process that an ethical issue is identified and addressed, the less costly it will be to fix in the long run. A worst case scenario is the requirement to address a safety issue after a project has been deployed. The news media are filled with examples where better ethical decision making during the design and deployment process might have prevented injuries, saved lives, and avoided millions of dollars in institutional liability settlements. 

Changing Roles of the Engineer

Engineers often represent multiple internal and or external stakeholders in a firm, corporation or government agency. They may begin their careers as practicing engineers but may progress into upper level administrative and engineering management positions. At each stage of their careers their loyalties may change. Engineers who are specifically charged with design development are often not the individuals who bear the ultimate responsibility for the profitability of the final design and deployment of a concept or product. It is often the case that a senior engineering manager will have overall profit responsibility but not the technical competence to sign off on work prepared by other design engineers. If a subordinate engineer’s design negatively impacts the profitability of the overall project, a decision may be made by upper engineering management to change a design specification to reduce cost. This cost reduction may negatively impact the health, welfare and safety of the public. Just because it is legal to make these changes to improve profitability doesn’t mean it is ethical.

Engineering Ethics in an International Environment

Many engineers working for U.S. companies practice engineering in a foreign country. It goes without saying that ethical practices outside the United States can be very different. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is intended to prevent U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials in order to gain favorable treatment in receiving contracts. Even though huge fines have been levied against companies for violating the FCPA, many companies doing business in a foreign country view the fines as a cost of doing business when the fines are a small percentage of the profits to be made. [13]

There is huge pressure on engineers and engineering managers to do what is necessary to acquire favorable business opportunities in foreign countries. Engineering decisions that would be considered unethical in the U.S. may be perfectly acceptable in a foreign country. Concerns about protecting the health, welfare and safety of the public are often secondary to making a profit in these circumstances. An example, among many, might be as simple as legal leniency regarding protecting the environment, or worse, substandard safety protocols. The ethical consequences of decisions such as these have been devastating in many foreign countries. Hundreds of lives have been lost in plant disasters due to structural failures, chemical disasters and fires in manufacturing facilities. These were the direct result of designs that would be considered unacceptable in the U.S. [14]

Doing the right thing should not change when engineers cross international borders. 

While professional engineers often practice their profession largely out of the public eye, the benefits of their efforts are visible all around us. 

A recent Gallup poll asked what professions people considered most trustworthy. When it comes to ethics and honesty, here’s how the top five professions ranked. Engineers remain among the most trusted professionals. [15]

• Pharmacists
• Medical Doctors

  Being an ethical and professional engineer can be very difficult at times. Universities and professional organizations are getting better at providing practicing engineers with the continuing education needed to make sound ethical decisions.  The elephant in the room that no one wants to recognize is the lack of protection for engineers who are asked to put their careers and livelihoods on the line to do the right thing. Protections must be put in place to ensure that engineers are protected under these circumstances. Failing to provide these protections puts everyone at risk.

  [1]  NSPE, "NSPE Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers," 8 May 2015. [Online].   http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics .

[2]  APPE, "Association for Practical and Professional Ethics," 19-21 Feb 2015. http://squirefoundation.org/appe /   

  [3]  B. W. Baker, "Engineering Ethics: Applications and Responsibilities," in Engineeering Ethics:

Concepts, Viewpoints, Cases and Codes , Lubbock, TX, National Institute for Engineering Ethics, 2008, pp. 49-65.

[4]  US Department of Labor, "Whistle Blower Protection Programs," 8 May 2015. [Online].   http://www.whistleblowers.gov/

[5]  V|Lex, "Bertrand G. Berube, Petitioner, v. General Services Administration, Respondent., 820 F.2d 396 (Fed. Cir. 1987)," 1982.

[6]   http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/04/us/critic-to-get-money-but-not-job-from-us.html

[7]  R. S. Kirby, Engineering in History, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1990. 

[8]  Craft Guilds, "Craft Guilds in the Middle Ages," Mar 2015. [Online].  

http://www.lordsandladies.org/craft-guilds-in-the-middle-ages.htm

[9]  NCEES, "The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)," 2015. http://ncees.org/about-ncees/

[10] ABET, Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology, http://www.abet.org / , 2015. 

[11] NIEE, "National Institute for Engineering Ethics," 8 May 2015.  

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/center/niee/index.ph p .

[12] W. Marcy and R. Burgess, Social Impact Analysis, Lecture ENGR 2392 Engineering Ethics and Its Impact on Society, Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University, 2015. 

[13] Investopedia, "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/foreign-corrupt-practices-act.asp .

[14] J. Burke, "Bangladesh factory fires: fashion industry's latest crisis," 8 Dec 2013. [Online].   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/bangladesh-factory-fires-fashion-latest-crisis .

  [15] L. Jeressi, "What Are the Most Trusted and Least Trusted Professions?" 2 April 2013. htt p://943thepoint.com/what-are-the-most-trusted-and-least-trusted-professions/

 -------------------------

Your reflective comments are invited on some or all of the following. As part of your analysis include information as appropriate on the stakeholders and how they are impacted both positively and negatively.

• What knowledge and skills are needed to implement sophisticated, appropriate and workable solutions to the complex global problems facing the world today?
• What interdisciplinary perspectives would help identify innovative and non-obvious solutions?
• What insights can you articulate, based your culture and other cultures with which you are familiar, to help understand your worldview and enable greater civic engagement?
• What is your position on the right thing(s) to do?

You need to be a member of The Ethical Engineer to add comments!

Join The Ethical Engineer

Hello, you need to enable JavaScript to use The Ethical Engineer.

Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.

Engineering ethics [what is it and why is it important]

Engineers are entrusted with the task of working on projects that impact our daily lives. Whether it is engineering a bridge, designing an aircraft, building a power plant, or managing engineering teams, engineers have the power to shape the world around us.

Engineers are also involved with finding innovative ways to raise crop, fruit, and vegetable yields while reducing the risk of food-borne illnesses. As you can see, consumers rely heavily on engineers to deliver them with safe and dependable goods and services.

There is no room for mistake or dishonesty in engineering!

Professional societies like engineering and medical, have their own set of rules and established code of ethics that govern the ethical conduct of their members. In this blog post, we’ll discuss what engineering ethics are and why they’re important for engineers.

Table of Contents

1. Engineering Ethics 2. What is the engineering code of ethics? 3. Why are engineering codes of ethics important? 4. Engineering Codes of Ethics By Professional Societies

Engineering Ethics

Engineering is a very important and learned profession. The practitioners of this occupation are expected to exhibit high integrity and honesty in their tasks, placing the public’s interests and welfare above all else.

To have a better understanding of engineering ethics, let’s start by defining Ethics or personal ethics.

What are ethics?

Ethics is a branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles. Ethics refers to the study of morality and the moral choices that we all have to make in our lives.

What are engineering ethics?

According to Wikipedia,

“Engineering ethics is the field of system of moral principles that apply to the practice of engineering. The field examines and sets the obligations by engineers to society, to their clients, and to the profession.” [1]

The definition above suggests that engineering ethics is a social responsibility taken by engineering professionals to ensure the welfare of the public.

Moreover, engineering ethics emphasizes that engineers shall not promote their own interests at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession. It’s about doing what’s right for other people, ensuring their safety and welfare.

That’s why professional engineering organizations like the NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), and ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) have established longstanding rules, standards, and policies to govern the behavior of their members.

These standards, rules, and policies that define ethical behavior comprise the Engineering Codes of Ethics. Let’s define the Engineering Code of Ethics in more detail.

What is the engineering code of ethics?

An engineering code of ethics (or engineering code of professional ethics) is a set of principles that establishes professional conduct and moral guidelines that professional engineers are obligated to follow. These principles require engineers to protect public safety, put the interests of clients and employers ahead of their own, and conduct themselves in an honest and ethical manner at all times. Engineering codes of ethics help foster public trust in the engineering profession which allows engineers to innovate and develop new technologies to improve our modern society. [2]

General Principles

The basic concepts of the codes of ethics are mostly similar across engineering organizations around the world, which further extends the code and provides additional advice. The following is an example from the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE):

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

• Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
• Perform services only in areas of their competence.
• Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
• Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
• Avoid deceptive acts.
• Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

Why are engineering codes of ethics important?

The author of the book “ Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engineering “, Saeed Moaveni gives an excellent explanation of the importance of engineering codes of ethics with an example in his book:

“An incompetent and unethical surgeon could cause at most the death of one man at one time on the operating table, whereas an incompetent and unethical engineer could cause the deaths of hundreds of people at one time. If an unethical engineer, in order to save money, designs a bridge or a part for an airplane that does not meet the safety requirements, hundreds of people’s lives are at risk!” – Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engineering , Saeed Moaveni

Teaching engineering ethics and professional behavior as a part of engineering education is required in some schools. In fact, most engineering curriculums require engineering students to take at least two credits of ethics education during their engineering programs.

Furthermore, in engineering practice, there are several reasons why engineering ethics is so crucial. Maintaining safety, honesty, and integrity are just a few of them.

1. Maintaining Public Safety

One of the key reasons why engineering ethics is so important is because engineers are responsible for maintaining public safety. If they do not abide by the engineering code of ethics, they could potentially put people’s lives at risk.

Engineers who adhere to a professional code of ethics promise that when performing their task, they will put the safety of society members first. It implies that engineers will employ standard and approved materials, as well as standard engineering methods throughout their careers.

2. Integrity and Honesty

Honesty and integrity are two of the most important values that engineers must uphold. The engineering code of professional ethics demands that engineers be honest in all their dealings, both with the clients and employers, as well as the public.

Engineers must follow an ethical code of conduct to ensure that they are honest in all their transactions. And they must also maintain the integrity of the engineering profession by not engaging in any fraudulent or deceptive activities.

When engineers keep to the code of ethics, even when faced with a problem or other distractions in their work, they will remain honest.

3. Promotes Public Confidence and Trust in the Profession

Engineering ethics codes of conduct should be acknowledged as a significant component of the engineering field since they assist to build public confidence in engineers by demonstrating that they are ethical individuals who will do what is right even if no one is watching.

It also allows others in related industries, such as construction, manufacturing, software development, and so on, to know that they have someone on their side when it comes to safety or quality standards.

Without these standards in place, each engineer would have to create his or her own set of standards, which might lead to issues such as not knowing what is considered acceptable behavior and how significant design specifications should be determined without first consulting relevant stakeholders.

4. Protects Clients and Employers from Harm

The engineering codes of ethics want engineers to protect the privacy of their clients and ensure that personal information is kept secure. They should not reveal any information about the client, such as their name, age, gender, or location as well as information regarding the project.

Similarly, the engineer should not discuss their employer’s information unless specifically permitted to do so.

5. Promotes Ethical Decision-making in Circumstances of Uncertainty

Engineers, like all individuals, face challenges, dilemmas, and moral issues in their line of duty. Engineers are guided in their difficult judgments by a code of ethics, which ensures that they select what is morally correct. They layout a bright line for what decision is moral and promotes social welfare rather than self-interest to protect moral values.

Engineering Codes of Ethics By Professional Societies

• Professional Engineers : Code for registered professional engineers.
• Civil Engineering : Code of ethics for civil engineers
• Mechanical Engineers : Code of ethics geared towards all engineers. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers provides an interpretation of the codes for mechanical engineers.
• Electrical Engineers : Code of ethics applicable to engineers of all disciplines and particularly electrical engineering.
• Energy Engineers : Codes of ethics applicable to energy engineers and energy managers.
• Chemical Engineers : Code of ethics for chemical engineers.
• Software Engineering Code of Ethics : A brief copy of the software engineering code of ethics for software engineers
• Naval Engineers : Code of ethics for Naval engineers by the American Society of Naval Engineers.

Bottom-line

The engineering profession has developed various codes of practice and ethical standards over time; these help engineering professionals make ethical decisions and express professional behavior while performing their engineering tasks.

These engineering codes of ethics set out the principles governing truthful acts while engineering projects are on course or when acting as engineering professionals.

References:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics

[2] https://www.pdh-pro.com/pe-resources/engineering-code-of-ethics/

Subscribe Now!

Get our latest news, eBooks, tutorials, and free courses straight into your inbox.

Types of Engineers and What they Do [Explained]

Latest innovations in civil engineering and construction industry

Civil Engineering: The Hardest Engineering Degree?

• Education & Career 34
• Industry 24
• Technology 18

GET OUR APP

Engineering Resources

Everything you need to know about National Space Day

Is Electrical Engineering Hard? Here’s What You Need to Know

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1 – Engineering

Engineering Ethics – Introduction and a brief history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics

Engineering ethics  is the field of  applied ethics  and system of moral principles that apply to the practice of  engineering . The field examines and sets the obligations by  engineers  to  society , to their clients, and to the profession. As a scholarly discipline, it is closely related to subjects such as the  philosophy of science , the  philosophy of engineering , and the  ethics of technology .

The 18 th century and growing concern

The first   Tay Bridge collapsed   in 1879. At least sixty were killed.

As engineering rose as a distinct profession during the 19th century, engineers saw themselves as either independent professional practitioners or technical employees of large enterprises. There was considerable tension between the two sides as large industrial employers fought to maintain control of their employees. [1]

In the United States growing professionalism gave rise to the development of four founding engineering societies: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1851), the   American Institute of Electrical Engineers   (AIEE) (1884), [2]   the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1880), and the   American Institute of Mining Engineers   (AIME) (1871). [3] ASCE and AIEE were more closely identified with the engineer as learned professional, where ASME, to an extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer is a technical employee. [4]

Even so, at that time ethics was viewed as a personal rather than a broad professional concern. [5] [6] : 6

Turning of the 20th century and turning point

The   Boston molasses disaster  provided a strong impetus for the establishment of professional licensing and codes of ethics in the United States.

When the 19th century drew to a close and the 20th century began, there had been series of significant   structural failures , including some spectacular   bridge failures , notably the   Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster   (1876),   Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the   Quebec Bridge collapse   (1907). These had a profound effect on engineers and forced the profession to confront shortcomings in technical and construction practice, as well as ethical standards. [7]

To the extent possible under law, Jennifer Kirkey has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to Engineering and Technology in Society - Canada , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Advertisement

A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics

• Original Research/Scholarship
• Open access
• Published: 24 August 2021
• Volume 27 , article number  60 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Diana Adela Martin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9368-4100 1 , 2 ,
• Eddie Conlon 2 &
• Brian Bowe 3  

13k Accesses

39 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper aims to review the empirical and theoretical research on engineering ethics education, by focusing on the challenges reported in the literature. The analysis is conducted at four levels of the engineering education system. First, the individual level is dedicated to findings about teaching practices reported by instructors. Second, the institutional level brings together findings about the implementation and presence of ethics within engineering programmes. Third, the level of policy situates findings about engineering ethics education in the context of accreditation. Finally, there is the level of the culture of engineering education. The multi-level analysis allows us to address some of the limitations of higher education research which tends to focus on individual actors such as instructors or remains focused on the levels of policy and practice without examining the deeper levels of paradigm and purpose guiding them. Our approach links some of the challenges of engineering ethics education with wider debates about its guiding paradigms. The main contribution of the paper is to situate the analysis of the theoretical and empirical findings reported in the literature on engineering ethics education in the context of broader discussions about the purpose of engineering education and the aims of reform programmes. We conclude by putting forward a series of recommendations for a socio-technical oriented reform of engineering education for ethics.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Two Cultures of Engineering Education: Looking Back and Moving Forward

What Is Engineering Ethics Education? Exploring How the Education of Ethics Is Defined by Engineering Instructors

A Systematic Literature Review of US Engineering Ethics Interventions

Justin L. Hess & Grant Fore

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Ethical concerns are a contemporary addition in engineering education. The establishment of ethics as an academic subject in the engineering curriculum began in the 1970s, when research on engineering ethics started to feature in academic journals and dedicated textbooks were published (Mitcham, 2009 ; Weil, 1984 ). Traditionally, disciplines of exact sciences such as engineering were regarded as morally neutral (Roeser, 2012 ) or even as morally good, Footnote 1 and hence did not require ethical instruction (Ehrlich, 2010 ). Consequently, the development of engineering ethics education has been slow (Mitcham, 2009 ; Reed et al., 2004 ).

The article aims to analyse the education of engineering ethics in terms of the challenges and dissatisfaction reported in the literature and link these with debates about the paradigms guiding engineering education and the purpose of reform programmes. The literature review draws inspiration from the Critical Realist focus on different levels of the engineering education system, which locates individual agents in the socio-cultural and institutional contexts in which they operate (Conlon, 2015 ). The failure to integrate these different levels into programs for change has been identified as a gap in engineering education research, with different research communities having focused separately on different levels (Froyd et al., 2008 ; Seymour, 2002 ). As Godfrey ( 2014 , p. 438) points out, it is important to focus the analysis of engineering education not only on the characteristics of behaviours and practices, but also on the values, beliefs, and assumptions that underpin how these came to be, as to enable the development of reform strategies. As such, higher education research should be mindful of contextual aspects, given that reform programmes focused strictly on ‘improving’ individuals run the risk of failure when neglecting the broader context that individuals operate in (Trowler, 2008 , p. 151). This can explain why engineering education reform has a relatively long but slow history (Heywood, 2005 ).

During the past decades, numerous challenges and an overall dissatisfaction with the state and status of engineering ethics education have been highlighted. The challenges revealed by empirical and conceptual research are preponderantly of an individual manner, pertaining to the instructors’ struggle to make sense of the variety of theoretical frameworks, learning goals, teaching activities and assessment methods, as to ensure their alignment (Keefer et al., 2014 ). This challenge is compounded by the engineering instructors’ low familiarity with ethics and their access to institutional support, CPD programmes or teaching resources. Several challenges of an institutional nature have also been reported. These are related to the unsystematic implementation of ethics (Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Flynn & Barry, 2010 ; Polmear et al., 2018 ), as well as the low weight given to ethics (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Monteiro et al., 2016 ). There are also challenges related to the cultural milieu of engineering education that was formative for the current generation of engineering academics (Jamison et al., 2014 ), and which in turn impacts the instructors and students’ engagement with ethics (Barry & Herkert, 2014 ; Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2000 ; Cech, 2014 ; Sheppard et al., 2009 ). These challenges point to the complexity behind the implementation and teaching of engineering ethics, which warrants further research and supportive strategies of a structural manner.

Theoretical Approach

Our analysis of engineering ethics education is inspired by Critical Realism, a theoretical approach that strives to develop deeper levels of explanation and understanding (Mc Evoy & Richards, 2006 ).

An example relevant to engineering ethics refers to accident causation. Pearce and Tombs ( 1998 ) draw explicitly on Critical Realism to argue that the analysis of accident causation tends to concentrate on first-order causes, such as immediate production pressures, poor communication or lack of training, and less on the second-order underlying mechanisms that generate them. Explanations about accidents should place their occurrence within “prevailing systems of economic, social and political organisation, dominant value systems and beliefs, and the differential distribution of power” (Tombs, 2007 , p. 29), before exploring their causes, which often are social, political or historical (Dien et al., 2004 , 2012 ). According to Tombs ( 2007 ), such analysis should consider factors present at distinct levels, ranging from individual agents to the contexts in which they operate, such as the workplace culture or the political environment in which a company is based.

By drawing inspiration from Critical Realism, our approach responds to arguments for analysing education as a complex and multi-layered system (Bybee, 2003 ; Godfrey, 2009 ; Lattuca & Stark, 2009 ; Sterling, 2004 ). Sterling ( 2004 ) uses an iceberg metaphor to point to the structures of paradigm and purpose guiding policy and practice in higher education, which are mostly hidden from view and consequently from debate. Godfrey ( 2009 ) also highlights the need for situating findings related to individual beliefs and practices manifest in engineering education within deeper structures. A similar claim in favour of deploying a depth analysis is made by Lattuca and Stark ( 2009 , p. 303), who argue that the higher education curriculum reflects its socio-cultural context. Nevertheless, higher education research has largely neglected the socio-cultural context that shapes the activities of individuals (Ashwin, 2009 ; Scott, 2005 , 2010 ; Trowler, 2005 , 2008 ).

Our literature survey comprises four levels of analysis (Table 1 ), whose main features and interrelations are explored. These four levels are (i) the individual level represented by instructors and students, (ii) the institutional level represented by higher education units such as engineering programmes, departments or colleges, (iii) the policy level represented by national accrediting bodies, and (iv) the wider cultural milieu in which engineering education takes place. A multi-level approach allows us to address some of the limitations of research in higher education, which tends to either include only individual agents such as instructors or students (Ashwin, 2008 , 2009 ; Trowler, 2005 , 2008 ), or to focus on the levels of policy and practice without examining the deeper levels of paradigm and purpose guiding them (Sterling, 2004 ). By adopting an approach focused on distinct analytical levels, our contribution aims to place individuals in their socio-cultural, institutional and policy context and to link some of the findings in engineering ethics education with wider debates about the dominant paradigm for engineering education (Jamison et al., 2014 ). A key issue that emerges is the need for clarity about the purpose of engineering education and the mission of reform programmes. The ultimate aim is to develop ground for reflection on the structural strategies needed for effecting change in engineering ethics education and to foster a socio-technical orientation of the engineering curriculum for ethics.

The literature review (Wilson & Anagnostopoulos, 2021 ) relied on the core collection of the Web of Science for identifying research about undergraduate engineering ethics education. To retrieve sources that address issues representing the four analytical levels described in Table 1 , the following combination of key terms was used to search in the titles and abstract of publications during the period 2000–2020: “ethic*” AND “engineering” AND “education*” OR “course” OR “curricul*” OR “instruct*” OR “teach*” OR “assess*” OR “implement*” OR “challeng*” OR “accredit*” OR “cultur*”.

To ensure a more comprehensive analysis, the process of retrieving sources based on keywords search was followed by an overview of the references mentioned by the most cited publications, for identifying additional publications relevant to the objectives of the analysis that do not have this combination of key terms in their title or abstract. An additional search was then undertaken in the engineering education journals and conference proceedings that featured the highest number of publications during the first search process. More specifically, the first author searched the databases of the Journal of Engineering Education, the European Journal of Engineering Education and Science and Engineering Ethics, as well as the conference websites for the American Society for Engineering Education and the European Society for Engineering Education to retrieve additional publications featuring the word “ethics” in their title, abstract or keywords.

A limitation that emerged during the source retrieval process relates to the extensive research published in English and the overemphasis on research undertaken in the US, UK, Australian and Western European context, to the exclusion of potential relevant studies set in other national and cultural contexts. A second limitation is linked with how accurately the published research on engineering ethics education that guides our analysis reflects the reality of teaching and institutional attitudes and practices. While it is not possible to ensure that the totality of teaching and institutional attitudes and practices is represented by existing research, the studies published can be considered a reliable indicator of the challenges and states of affairs in engineering ethics education. A final limitation is due to narrowing the analysis of policy actors to accrediting bodies, thus omitting other influential actors such as funding agencies or state ministries. We are referring here only to accrediting bodies, being modest about the breadth we can ensure in a journal publication and at the same time mindful of the role played by this policy body in engineering education worldwide. We consider that accreditation is a force shaping engineering education in many and various national contexts, in ways that resonate across geographical borders, while the role of other policy actors might be confined to specific geographical contexts.

Multi-level Analysis of the Challenges of Engineering Ethics Education

In what follows, we present the empirical and theoretical findings about the challenges and dissatisfaction with engineering ethics education reported in the literature, manifest at each analytical level.

Individual Level

The main challenges experienced by instructors teaching ethics can be subsumed under seven main themes, related to (i) the lack of clarity about the appropriate pedagogical approaches for supporting the various goals set for engineering ethics education, (ii) ensuring a broad coverage of topics, (iii) conducting assessment, (iv) the limited empirical research guiding the design and use of teaching materials, (v) the lack of familiarity with the subject, (vi) the lack of support, and (vii) students’ resistance to ethics.

Diversity and Lack of Clarity for Goals Set in Engineering Ethics Education

The limited research on the effectiveness of the various strategies and goals set for engineering ethics education is a major challenge revealed in the literature. According to Hess and Fore ( 2018 ), there are multiple ethics related learning goals, and no consensus on which strategies are the most effective towards these goals, nor goals should be prioritised. The instructors surveyed by Romkey ( 2015 , p. 25) were found to employ a “very diverse” set of overall teaching goals, but “the goals and practices did not always align”. As stressed by Keefer et al., ( 2014 , p. 250), “variability in instructional goals within the same content areas raises the spectre of significant problems with curricular alignment”. A coherent strategy implies that the goals set for engineering ethics education inform decisions about assessment (Borrego & Cutler, 2010 , p. 366), and are congruent with the delivery and pedagogical methods employed (Li & Fu, 2012 , p. 343). The lack of clarity and alignment might lead to missed educational opportunities (Li & Fu, 2012 ).

The goals proposed for engineering ethics education can be grouped under 12 major categories, as seen in Table 2 . Inspired by the goals described by Van de Poel and Royakkers, ( 2011 ), six of these categories relate to the development of moral sensibility, analysis, creativity, judgement, decision-making and argumentation. Additionally, we identified goals that fall under categories such as moral knowledge, design and agency, situatedness, emotional and character and virtue development.

There is limited research exploring the prevalence of each learning goal in engineering ethics instruction or on the teaching methods and content to achieve them, which raises questions on how to ensure curricular alignment. Furthermore, there is little known on how specific learning goals might convey to students an understanding of the societal mission of engineering, as captured by the broader theoretical frameworks used to conceptualise engineering ethics education.

Considering the more popular theoretical frameworks developed in the last decades, learning goals can be further subsumed under microethics, macroethics, virtue ethics, value sensitive design and feminist ethics of technologies.

The microethical model is characterised by a strong emphasis on the individual responsibility of engineers (Herkert, 2005 ). Basart and Serra ( 2013 , p. 179) capture the spirit of microethics by noting that it “is usually focused on engineers’ ethics, engineers acting as individuals.” It strives to expose students to ethical dilemmas, with goals focused on enhancing students’ professional responsibility through knowledge of professional codes and refining their moral judgement. This is the theoretical approach considered to prevail in engineering ethics education (Bielefeldt et al., 2016 ; Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Herkert, 2000 ; Hess & Fore, 2018 ).

The macroethics model moves beyond an understanding of engineering actions and responsibilities in individual terms towards engaging the engineering profession as a whole and reflecting on the profession’s responsibility in technological development (Vanderburg, 1989 ; Herkert, 2005 ). The focus is on the collective responsibilities of engineers and societal decision-making about technology (Herkert, 2005 , p. 373). Goals address the context of engineering practice in order to enable an engineer’s agency to act ethically (Zandvoort et al . , 2008 ; Conlon, 2011 ; Chance et al., 2021 ). Macroethical goals also target the development of technologies that are congruent with egalitarian and democratic structures and institutions (Vanderburg, 1989 ), or foster the active involvement in public policy to formulate rules and regulations promoting socially just practices (Martin & Schinzinger, 2013 , p. 29; Conlon & Zandvoort, 2011 ).

Representative of virtue ethics approaches are goals that emphasise the importance of context sensitivity and the acquisition of moral virtues and practical judgment ( phronesis ) for dealing with concrete situations (Nair & Bulleit, 2020 ). The focus of virtue ethics lies not on the rightness of engineering decisions, actions or outcomes, but on developing the moral attitudes or virtues of the deciding agents that would incline an engineer’s actions (Hillerbrand & Roeser, 2016 ; Schmidt, 2014 ; Vallor, 2016 ). According to virtue ethics, pedagogical approaches that focus on moral action and its consequences need to be complemented by training the future engineer to develop certain character traits or virtues. Virtue ethics has been posited as a more appropriate frame to convey aspects of engineering professionalism, such as sensitivity to risk, awareness of the social context of technology, respect for nature and commitment to the public good (Harris, 2008 ). Virtue-based pedagogical approaches are also considered to improve engineering students' ethical competence, contributing to learning goals purporting to an enhanced ethical sensitivity, awareness, analysis and judgement (Frigo et al, 2021 ). This theoretical approach lies at the basis of Bowen’s ( 2009 ) understanding of the mission of engineering as enhancing the quality of human life, the well-being of the community or the vitality of the eco-system. Fostering a virtue based approach in engineering education can contribute to the development of students’ professional identity as “virtuous engineers”, who can

assert their responsibility for engaging in a combined human performance that involves the exercise of practical judgment to enhance the material well-being of all people by achieving safety, sustainability and efficiency while exhibiting objectivity, care and honesty in assessing, managing and communicating risk. (Schmidt, 2014 , p. 1007)

An alternative theoretical approach which aims to integrate micro and macro ethical aspects in engineering education is Value Sensitive Design. Footnote 2 Introduced by Friedman ( 1996 ) and later popularised in the Netherlands, VSD draws on the philosophy of technology and Science and Technology Studies to connect the moral analysis of the influence exercised by technological artefacts on their environment with moral decision-making during the design process (van de Poel & Verbeek, 2006 ; Verbeek, 2008 , 2011). A major goal of this approach is to make students aware of how the effects of a technological artefact transcend its functionality. When technologies fulfil their functions, they also shape the experiences and actions of their users (Verbeek, 2006 ). VSD thus proposes a broadening of the scope of engineering ethics education as to encompass goals fostering the professional responsibility of engineers from the design stage of an artefact, by considering the prospective mediating role of technology development and instilling it with moral values (Verbeek, 2008 , 2011). The values prioritised by this approach target the societal good over instrumental values aimed at enhancing economic profit (Friedman et al., 2013 ). Important values promoted by VSD relate to safety, sustainability and inequality (Mok & Hyysalo, 2018 ; Mouter et al., 2018 ; van Gorp, 2005 ). The focus is on encouraging students to design value driven artefacts and solutions that contribute to societal welfare or diminish the negative societal effects of existing technologies (Gorman, 2000 , 2001 ; van Gorp & van de Poel, 2001; Verbeek, 2008 , 2011).

A feminist philosophy of technology is an inclusive and value-laden approach that employs a critical discourse on modern technological development (Loh, 2019 ). In the articulation of feminist philosophy of technology, the concern lies with the development of tools and knowledge for enhancing women’s “ability to develop, expand, and express their capacities” (Layne, 2010 , p. 3). The goals of this approach range from addressing the status of women to restructuring social arrangements in ways that adjust the power relations between genders (Layne, 2010 ). These goals are aligned with the precepts of VSD (Pantazidou & Nair, 1999 ; Whitbeck, 1998 ), by reflecting on the gendered assumptions inherent in technological design and promoting the development of technological artefacts that do not discriminate against the female gender (Michefelder et al . , 2017 ; Riley, 2013 ). Thus, for feminist philosophy of technology, technological artefacts cannot be divorced from the social, political and economic context of their development and modes of use (Layne, 2010 ; Whitbeck, 1998 ). In this sense, feminist philosophy of technology has a common history and agenda with social justice movements, through the focus on ending “different kinds of oppression, to create economic equality, to uphold human rights and dignity, and to restore right relationships among all people” (Riley, 2008 , p. 5; Riley et al., 2009 ).

Mindful of the varied theoretical frameworks for organizing the goals of engineering ethics education, we suggest that curricular alignment should consider not only the teaching and assessment methods or the thematic content of instruction, but also the view of the mission of engineering put forward by different conceptualisations. The prevailing goals reported in the literature have an overriding focus on the moral agency of engineers and less on the context in which they may have to make ethical decisions or on the values embedded at the design stage (Hess & Fore, 2018 ). This means that students might be exposed to a singular and narrow dimension of engineering ethics (Canney et al., 2017 ). To counteract this risk, microethical approaches can be complemented by other theoretical approaches, as to ensure the attainment of a broader spectrum of ethics learning goals and a nuanced view of engineers’ role in society, reflective also of the institution’s educational vision and graduate attributes.

Furthermore, there are also concerns that ethics education might lead to indoctrination. Some instructors argue against the presence of ethics in the engineering curriculum, considering it a subjective and personal issue falling under the responsibility of the students’ families (Romkey, 2015 ; Vesilind, 1991 ; Walczak et al., 2010 ). This stance highlights the need for open discussions and clarifications on the object of engineering ethics, as to explore and challenge common intuitions and how the personal understanding of the subject is reflected in the aspirational goals set for ethics.

Content of Engineering Ethics Education

Engineering ethics is taught using diverse content areas. The major content areas identified include responsibility, sustainability, health and safety, legislation, professional ethics, community engagement and humanitarian engineering, societal context, value sensitive design, academic and research integrity, ethical theories, business studies and military applications (Bielefeldt et al., 2019a , 2019b ; Haws, 2001 ; Kline, 2001 ; Lynch, 1997 ; Martin et al., 2020 , p. 2). At the core of engineering ethics lies the concept of "professional responsibility” (Herkert, 2002 ), understood by Whitbeck ( 1998 ) as the “exercise of judgment and care to achieve or maintain a desirable state of affairs”.

However, not all content areas are of “equal value” for the goal of helping engineers connect their work to the broader community and exercise their societal responsibility (Haws, 2001 , p. 227). More so, there is an uneven coverage of key ethical issues (Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Polmear et al, 2019 ), which is consistent with the difference in how instructors and students perceive the coverage of ethics. Even though faculty describe their instruction as including not only codes, but also a nuanced treatment of complex issues, students report hearing “simplistic, black-and-white messages about ethics” (Holsapple et al., 2012 , p. 101). This might be due to the instructors’ lack of familiarity and training in teaching ethics, such that simplistic teaching might lead to simplistic messages. Footnote 3

Reflecting on the uneven coverage of engineering ethics education, Bielefeldt et al. ( 2016 ) note that there is a limited understanding of the extent to which macroethical topics are being addressed. While the focus is on professional codes, safety and plagiarism (Atesh et al., 2017 ; Colby & Sullivan, 2008 , pp. 329–330; Hess & Fore, 2018 , p. 551; Mitcham, 2017 , p. 4; Polmear et al., 2018 , p. 14), there are concerns that macro topics have lesser prominence. Under-emphasized topics include equity, the critical histories of ideas about engineering, the broader mission and implications of the profession, as well as the respect for life, law and public good (Atesh et al., 2017 ; Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Mitcham, 2009 ; Rottman & Reeve, 2020 ). According to Mitcham ( 2009 ), discussions about public safety, health and welfare should be complemented by reflection on their historical and social character.

Conducting Assessment

As Goldin et al., ( 2015 , p. 790) point out, the instructors’ teaching approach affects assessment, and “given the variations in teaching applied ethics, one must be clear about the goals of teaching, and the real opportunities for assessment.” Keefer et al., ( 2014 , p. 259) also highlight the importance of aligning goals with teaching methods as to ensure they are “appropriately assessed”, noting that alignment is “still a weakness in the present state of ethics education.” The assessment of ethics raises several challenges, pertaining to the unfamiliarity with evaluating and grading the ethical components of engineering courses, as well as to the limited guidance about what assessment methods are suitable for nontechnical subjects (Goldin et al., 2006 ; Romkey, 2015 ; Sinha et al., 2007 ).

Engineering ethics instructors typically use between 0 and 4 assessment methods, with an average of two assessment methods per course (Bielefeldt et al., 2016 , p. 12). Popular assessment methods include reflective essays and individual assignments graded with a rubric (Bielefeldt et al., 2016 , p. 12), as well as presentations, group projects and portfolios (Sunderland et al., 2013 ). Nevertheless, it is more common for ethical components either to remain unassessed or be subjected to a binary assessment as pass/fail (Keefer et al., 2014 , p. 251), with several instructors indicating they “made no effort to assess student’s understanding of ethics” (Freyne & Hale, 2009, p. 8).

According to Newberry ( 2004 , pp. 349–350), the use of varied assessment methods is linked to a personal understanding of engineering ethics by instructors unfamiliar with this subject. Davis and Feinerman ( 2012 ) also highlight the difficulty in grading students on ethical abilities and character. Many of the faculty with a technical background consider ethics to be a personal and subjective subject, ignoring how Humanities faculty assess students’ work and provide feedback (Davis & Feinerman, 2012 ). The assessment of case study assignments can also be challenging due to the ill-structured nature of the problems they address (Goldin et al., 2015 ).

These challenges led to a call for the development of standardized assessment instruments, scoring rubrics and instruments. There are currently instruments that measure the maturity of students’ reflection on ethical issues (Rest, 1979 ; Rest et al., 1999 ), the influence of formal and informal ethical experiences on students’ behaviour (Finelli et al., 2012 ; Harding et al . , 2013 ), students’ views on social responsibility (Canney & Bielefeldt, 2016 ), their moral sensitivity (Borenstein et al., 2008 ), the ability to address ethical dilemmas, focused on attributes of attainment such as the recognition, argumentation, analysis, perspective taking and resolution (Sindelar et al., 2003 ), moral reasoning (Borenstein et al., 2010 ), moral decision-making in design projects (Zhu et al., 2014 ) or in the context of briefs provided by industry stakeholders (Moskal et al., 2001 ) and real world scenarios (Bagdasarov et al., 2016 ; Mumford et al, 2006 ).

An advantage of assessment instruments is that results can serve as feedback for instructors in the process of curricular improvement, revealing where to allocate future instructional resources (Keefer et al., 2014 , p. 258; Moskal et al., 2001 ; Sindelar et al., 2003 ). A significant drawback is that none of the instructors surveyed by Bielefeldt et al. ( 2016 ) has been using a standardised assessment method, as they are unaware of their existence. This might be linked to a lack of familiarity with ethics and training in ethics instruction. Further drawbacks refer to the lengthy time duration of standardised assessment tests or their lack of relevance across different student cohorts (Davis & Feinerman, 2012 ). As Davis and Feinerman ( 2012 , p. 357) note, standardized assessment offers “no middle ground for a test both general enough to produce comparable results across a wide range of courses and specific enough to measure what was actually learned in a particular course”.

More so, the quantitative treatment of ethical matters put forward by standardised tests can be interpreted as an attempt to bring the positivist approach characteristic of the technical culture into a nontechnical subject. Also notable is the Western centric nature of existing standardized tests. The aforementioned tests have been developed in the US and might exclude the cultural traditions of other geographical regions or the individual characteristics of respondents that are shaped by their gender, ethnicity, cultural background or social class (Zhu et al., 2014 , p. 10). Goals associated with the feminist and value-based design approaches are also missing from the scope of existing standardized tests.

Lack of Expertise

As Barry and Herkert ( 2014 , p. 824) note, the preparation of faculty to “comfortably engage” with the subject remains one of the biggest challenges facing engineering ethics education. Other major challenges encountered by instructors relate to formulating ethical learning goals and understanding the expectations of accrediting bodies as to how these can be achieved (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2000 ; Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Herkert, 2002 ; Sheppard et al., 2009 ). At the root of these challenges, we find the instructors’ lesser familiarity with ethics, which makes difficult finding appropriate pedagogical content and linking ethical concerns with technical subjects (Barry & Herkert, 2014 ). Furthermore, engineering instructors highlight the lack of guidance and training on how to teach ethics (Harding et al., 2009 ; Monteiro, 2016 ; Polmear et al., 2018 ; Romkey, 2015 ; Sinha et al., 2007 ; Vesilind, 1991 ; Walczak et al., 2010 ). Also notable is the time commitment required for becoming acquainted with an unfamiliar subject, which is an impediment given the busy schedule of faculty members (Walczak et al., 2010 ).

Co-teaching activities involving engineering and philosophy or social sciences instructors can address the problem of expertise and convey to students a message about the importance of this subject. Nevertheless, it is an expensive, time and labour-intensive approach, which requires long-term contact and research efforts (Bombaerts et al., 2021 ). Moreover, this approach is considered “second-rate academic work” (Taebi & Kastenberg, 2019 , p. 1768), and is not properly acknowledged in promotion and hiring schemes (National Academy of Engineering, 2017 , p. 12).

Empirical Research Guiding the Design and Use of Teaching Materials

Existing studies report the use of various teaching methods (Harding et al., 2013 ; Keefer et al., 2014 ). These include case studies, lectures and presentations, role-playing activities, in-class or online discussion, debates, voting, games, online courses, films and videos, creative fiction, science fiction, community service, field trips and visits (Loui, 2009 ; Alpay, 2011 ; Atwood & Read-Daily, 2015 ; Berne & Schummer, 2005 ; Bielefeldt et al . , 2016 ; Burton et al., 2018 ; Finelli et al., 2012 ; Génova & González, 2015 ; Itani, 2013 ; Kang & Lundeberg, 2010 ; Lloyd & van de Poel, 2008 ; Loui, 2000 ; Lumgair, 2018 ; Pritchard, 2000 ; Rabb et al., 2015 ; Voss, 2013 ). One of the most popular methods for teaching engineering ethics are case studies (Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Herkert, 2000 ; Yadav & Barry, 2009 ).

Nevertheless, despite the variety of teaching methods and the prevalence of case studies, there is limited empirical research that could elucidate the effectiveness of each teaching approach towards the attainment of clearly defined goals, as well as their impact on student engagement (Bagdasarov et al., 2013 ; Bombaerts et al., 2021 ; Martin et al., 2021 ; Thiel et al., 2013 , p. 267). There is also little known on how cases are presented in engineering ethics instruction and the kind of cases used (Yadav et al, 2007 ), how they should be taught (Davis & Yadav, 2014 , p. 172), and what approach serves the achievement of which learning goals (Romkey, 2015 ). As such, one cannot point to the approach by which the case method could achieve its “alleged superiority” in engineering ethics instruction (Abaté, 2011 , p. 589).

Lack of Support

Another challenge faced at individual level is the lack of peer and institutional support for instructors teaching ethics (Polmear et al., 2018 ; Romkey, 2015 ; Walczak et al., 2010 ). Engineering ethics instructors report feeling isolated and lacking a peer group within their institution with whom they could discuss their teaching approaches (National Academy of Engineering, 2017 ). Recent initiatives for connecting engineering ethics instructors and researchers include the Engineering Ethics Division of the American Society for Engineering Education, the special interest group on ethics of the European Society of Engineering Education, or the Communities of Practice supported by the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. Footnote 4 Instructors also report resistance encountered at the institutional level, related to fewer resources allocated for ethics teaching and promotion systems that do not recognise the value of ethics education (Martin et al., 2021 ; Polmear et al., 2018 , p. 13; Taebi & Kastenberg, 2019 ; Walczak et al., 2010 ).

Student Reception

Students’ skills and reception of ethics is another major challenge of engineering ethics instruction (Harding et al., 2009 ; Romkey, 2015 ). Students tend to show disinterest, resistance, and difficulties when exposed to ethics and societal considerations (Bairaktarova, & Evangelou, 2011 ; Polmear et al., 2018 , p. 9), as well as a lack of emotional engagement with the course content (Balakrishnan & Tarlocha, 2015 ; Newberry, 2004 ). Students also prefer to have ethics as a non-compulsory topic that is not assessed (Sucala, 2019 ), and invest less time preparing for ethics courses (Bombaerts & Nickel, 2017 ; Martin, 2020 ).

This may contribute to a trend identified in several research studies showing that students’ engagement with public welfare and their moral reasoning decreases throughout their engineering studies (Bielefeldt & Canney, 2016 ; Cech, 2014 ; Rulifson & Bielefeldt, 2018 ), even upon receiving ethics training (Tormey et al., 2015 ). Cech ( 2014 ) found that students from engineering programmes which emphasise the development of technical skills to the detriment of ethics and social engagement tend to have declining beliefs about the importance of public welfare from their first to last year of studies, and their engagement with public welfare issues does not rebound upon entering the workplace. Engineering students tend to develop strong and rigid views about the lower value of academic subjects oriented towards people and society (Adams et al . , 2018 ). They also express less commitment to social activism and concern for society than students from other disciplines (Sax, 2000 ), and consider unrealistic to expect engineers to have an ethical behaviour (Stappenbelt, 2013 ).

Institutional Level

Barry and Herkert ( 2014 , p. 420) highlight that the key aspects in the implementation of ethics at programme level refer to where and how ethics is integrated in the programme and the weight given to ethics. These questions touch on issues considered challenging at the institutional level, such as what constitutes an effective design and implementation of ethics in the engineering curricula, as well as ensuring the balance between technical and ethical content (Sheppard et al., 2009 ; Wicklein, 1997 ).

Low Emphasis on Ethics

As Wicklein ( 1997 , p. 74) remarks, it is important to enquire to what degree should the engineering curriculum be devoted to technical skill training, given that historically there has been “an exorbitant amount of instructional time to this area, while slighting many of the other facets of the curriculum”. According to Wicklein ( 1997 , p. 74), the key to a healthy engineering curriculum is finding the “appropriate balance of tool skills with other curricular areas”.

Empirical research paints an educational landscape where ethics has marginal presence in the engineering curriculum, even in educational systems where ethics features among the accreditation criteria (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Ocone, 2013 ). The self-assessment conducted by engineering programmes for the purpose of accreditation in Ireland reveals that ethics is the accreditation outcome with the lowest weight in the engineering curriculum, compared with both technical and nontechnical outcomes (Martin, 2020 ). In countries where ethics education is not mandatory for accreditation, ethics is mostly absent (Monteiro et al., 2016 , 2017 ). As Mitcham ( 2014 ) points out, humanities and social science requirements are often limited to “little more than a semester’s worth, spread over a degree program crammed with science and engineering”. The marginal role of ethics in a technically dominant curriculum is revealed also by the few number of exams and assignments addressing ethical considerations (Fabregat, 2013 ; Miñano et al., 2017 ; Stonyer, 1998 ).

There is a disparity between the perceived importance of ethical and societal related practices and their presence in the curriculum (Romkey, 2015 , p. 14). The main risk associated with a weak presence of ethics in engineering education is that of conveying to students the message that ethics is not as important for their education and future profession as the development of technical abilities (McGinn, 2003 , p. 525). Given that university education is the propitious period when engineering students start developing their identities as future professionals (Loui, 2005 ), the curricular weight given to ethics is of crucial importance for sending students the message that ethics is not peripheral to engineering, but a substantial aspect of their profession (Li & Fu, 2012 ; Trevelyan, 2010 , 2014 ).

Lack of a Systematic Approach Driving the Implementation of Ethics

For implementing ethics in a systematic manner, a cohesive and purposeful strategy needs to be designed at institutional level. To ensure a cohesive curriculum, devising an implementation strategy should take precedence over the introduction of ethics learning activities (Li & Fu, 2012 ). Such strategy should be considerate of quality assurance mechanisms, accreditation requirements, and strive to adapt the implementation of ethics as to fit the vision and graduate attributes set by the institution as well as the specific characteristics of the institution’s ecosystem.

A systematic implementation of ethics requires a wide scale transformation undertaken at institutional level (LeBlanc, 2002 ). The challenges of such an endeavour are rooted in budgetary pressures, limited institutional resources for bringing external instructors with an expertise in this area, insufficient space in the curriculum and lack of guidance (Romkey, 2015 ; Sheppard et al., 2009 ; Walczak et al., 2010 ).

Besterfield-Sacre et al., ( 2000 , p. 100) note that when a dedicated ethics criterion was introduced in the US, there was “much concern as to how to best operationalise each outcome for use within one’s own institution.” A similar deficit about the operationalising the accreditation outcome dedicated to ethics in the engineering curriculum is encountered in the context of engineering education in Ireland, where Murphy et al., ( 2019 , p. 381) found no evidence that any institution implemented ethics “to set itself apart […] as different and unique” and there are “no clear themes reflecting an institute-wide focus” with respect to ethics.

According to Herkert ( 2002 ), the vagueness of the accreditation criterion “makes it difficult to implement a standard model for teaching engineering ethics.” A significant challenge is thus linked to understanding the formulation of accreditation requirements purporting to ethics and the expectations of the accreditation body about the implementation of ethics (Colby & Sullivan, 2008 ; Sheppard et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, engineering programmes report the lack of “consistent, accurate, and reliable methods of teaching ethics and measuring its outcome” (Bairaktarova & Woodcock, 2015 ), pointing to issues related to quality assurance. This is reflected in the disparity of approaches for teaching and assessing ethics (Bielefeldt, 2016 ; Harding et al., 2013 ), and the call for a constructive alignment between programme outcomes targeting ethics, assessment methods and the design of learning environments (Bombaerts et al., 2019 ; Borrego & Cutler, 2010 ).

The unconstructive feedback following accreditation events and the lack of guidance from the accrediting body on how to operationalise the outcome has been highlighted as a significant barrier in the systematic implementation of ethics at institutional level (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Bielefeldt et al., 2016 ; Herkert, 2002 ; Murphy et al., 2019 , pp. 381–382). According to Barry and Ohland ( 2012 , p. 389), the feedback on ethics received from the accrediting body is “either significantly lacking or not constructively useful to the evaluated programmes,” which might impede the dimension of the accreditation process associated with quality assurance and improvement (Kumar et al., 2020 ; Quiles-Ramos et al., 2017 ). Barry and Ohland ( 2012 , p. 389) further stress that the lack of feedback following the accreditation review has left “most programs uncertain of their chosen quantity of curricular content". Reflecting on the South African context, Gwynne-Evans et al., ( 2021 , p. 10) note that the description of the graduate attributes set by the Engineering Council of South Africa provides “very little conceptual detail” as to their meaning, which results in “insufficient signposts to guide educators in the implementation and assessment of ethics within the engineering programme”.

The vagueness and limited scope of the ethics accreditation criterion risks leading to a narrow treatment of the subject (Gwynne-Evans et al., 2021 ; Riley, 2021 ). Bielefeldt et al. ( 2016 ) are especially concerned that in the US, ABET’s self-study documents do not distinguish between micro and macro ethical issues, while the common use of the Fundamentals of Engineering exam implies a focus on microethical issues.

There also appears to be a less thorough evaluation of how engineering programmes meet the accreditation criterion dedicated to ethics, compounded by minimal recommendations on the implementation of this outcome, and a granting of accreditation irrespective of the lacuna identified in the evidence purporting to ethics. Such absence can lead to minimal interventions undertaken at programme level targeting ethics. Examining the Irish context, Murphy et al., ( 2019 , p. 381) found “no evidence of systemic attention to a broadening agenda within the accreditation reports”, and that “often, the same (few) courses” within a programme are mentioned as bearing the responsibility to provide all the evidence for meeting the requirement purporting to ethics. Ethics thus ends up being regarded as an “add-on” implanted artificially in an engineering programme, rather than implemented following a programme wide strategic process (Flynn & Barry, 2010 ; Martin, 2020 ; Murphy et al., 2019 ; Newberry, 2004 ; Polmear et al., 2018 ; Sunderland, 2019 ).

A survey of 100 programmes offered by 40 engineering schools in the US, found that few schools managed to institute “systematic programmes to educate for a broad sense of professional responsibility” (Colby & Sullivan, 2008 , p. 330). In Ireland, a similar ad-hoc implementation of ethics has been reported, contrasted with the carefully designed strategy driving the implementation of technical topics. According to an evaluator for the accrediting body,

“if you take technical subjects, like structures or signal processing, the academics will make sure that the design of the programme incorporates these, and in a logical and coherent way. But they do not take the same approach about the ethical material” (Martin, 2020 ).

The challenges of implementing ethics are compounded by questions of how to make room for new content in a crowded curriculum. Technical and scientific subjects are given priority in the engineering curriculum, making it difficult for programmes to decide which technical components should be reduced to introduce new ethical components (Harding et al., 2009 ; Polmear et al., 2018 ; Romkey, 2015 ; Walczak et al., 2010 ).

Policy Level

At policy level, the impact of national accrediting bodies on the engineering curriculum was highlighted as a potential force for an enhanced role given to ethics. Since the adoption of the Washington Accord, signatory countries are required to align to a similar set of graduate attributes, including ethics, and their accrediting bodies ensure that these are being met. As such, the introduction of an accreditation criterion dedicated to ethics in the Washington Accord signatory countries has led to an increase in the number of courses addressing ethical issues (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Lattuca et al., 2006 ; Martin, 2020 ; Ocone, 2013 ; Skinner et al., 2007 ; Volkwein, et al., 2004 ).

Despite the positive influence of accrediting bodies on enhancing the presence of ethics in the engineering curriculum through the formulation of required outcomes, there are doubts that the pressure from accreditation criteria can inform deeper curricular change (Little, 2019 ; Sunderland, 2013 ).

Role of a Dedicated Accreditation Criterion

Having an accreditation criterion dedicated to ethics can contribute to its increased presence in the engineering curriculum. In the US, the formulation of the accreditation criteria known as EC2000 constituted a step forward towards the inclusion of more societal and environmental topics, as well as of considerations regarding the professional and ethical responsibilities of engineers (Herkert, 2001 ; Johnston & Eager, 2001 ). Prior to the adoption of EC2000, the engineering academic landscape in the US was described as neglecting the ethical dimension of the profession (Herkert, 2002 , 2005 ). A survey of US course catalogues conducted by Stephan ( 1999 , pp. 460–461) showed that in 1998, less than 27% of colleges had a mandatory course addressing ethics. Later studies have indeed confirmed an increase in the number of mandatory ethical courses, provided either by engineering programmes or by humanities programmes within the same institution (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Volkwein et al., 2004 ). Furthermore, a study commissioned by ABET noted an “increased emphasis on nearly all of the professional skills and knowledge sets” associated with the accreditation criterion dedicated to ethics (Lattuca et al., 2006 , p. 3). Surveys covering the period prior to the introduction of the EC2000 showed that undergraduate engineering students did not perceive the importance of learning about the engineer’s role in society (Peters, 1998 , p. 874), considering that their courses prepared them “only a little bit or not at all” to face ethical issues in the workplace (McGinn, 2003 ). In contrast to their counterparts who graduated prior to the introduction of EC2000, 2004 graduates reported higher ability levels on outcomes related to the awareness of the impact of engineering decision-making and ethics (Lattuca et al., 2006 , p. 9).

While empirical research on the reception and impact of an accreditation criterion dedicated to ethics is predominantly US based, research conducted in Australia and the UK reveals similar findings about the increased curricular presence of ethics following the introduction of such requirements. In Australia, the accreditation criteria were redesigned in 1997 to include the “understanding of the social, cultural, global and environmental responsibilities of the professional engineer, and the need for sustainable development” and an “understanding of the principles of sustainable design and development” (Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1997 ). A survey of Australian engineering institutions prior to the introduction of a dedicated ethics criterion showed that “apart from a few mentions of sustainability and professionalism, there was no indication of any scholarly interest in these areas” (Johnston et al., 2000 , p. 317). Afterwards, the accreditation of engineering programmes required an “integrated exposure to professional engineering practice, including management and professional ethics in not less than 10% of courses, up to a coverage of 20%” (Skinner et al., 2007 , p. 136). In the UK, a survey supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering revealed that engineering ethics instruction was “rather patchy” prior to the introduction of ethical specifications in accreditation (Ocone, 2013 , p. 263). In Ireland, instructors also perceive an increase in the content dedicated to ethics following the introduction of a dedicated accreditation criterion, from “virtually nothing” (Martin, 2020 ).

At the same time, the lack of a firm stance of the accrediting body on ethics was found to negatively affect the presence of ethics in the engineering curriculum, as in the case of Portugal (Monteiro & Leite, 2021 ; Monteiro et al., 2016 , 2017 , 2019 ). Monteiro ( 2016 , p. 2) explains the low emphasis given to ethics as the outcome of the strong influence of instructors on shaping curriculum development, based on their own views of education and knowledge. Such views have a cultural root, purporting to the technically oriented education that engineering instructors received (Monteiro, 2016 ).

Surface Level Change

Accreditation requirements can offer the impetus for curricular redesign (Graham, 2012 ; Lattuca & Stark, 2009 ; Lewis, 2016 ). Nevertheless, institutional change driven solely by the demands set by accrediting bodies leads to a culture of compliance rather than of transformative change (Little, 2019 ). The pressure originating in the interplay between the external influence of accrediting bodies and administrative leadership is considered to marginalise the role of individual instructors (Suskie, 2015 ), giving rise to a “transactional environment” (Little, 2019 , p. 33). As such, the implementation of accreditation recommendations is not considered to necessarily translate into quality curricular change (Bolden, 2007 ; Haviland, 2014 ; Kuh et al., 2015 ).

More so, older universities with a long legacy of alumni are also more resistant to changing their curricula for the purpose of accreditation. Klassen ( 2018 ) found that institutional prestige can be used to resist a perceived misinterpretation of criteria by accreditors, in ways that would not be possible in lower status institutions. Elite universities can thus maintain their position with “less need to change their discourse or organisation to maintain their power and position” (Bernstein, 2000 , p. 69).

Although policy agents have the role of initiating change through the formulation of mandatory graduate learning outcomes, this effort can nevertheless fall short of achieving a deeper change in the ethos of engineering programmes and of prompting reflection on the purpose of engineering education. Even in national systems of engineering education that have mandated ethics, “one can take a ‘tick box’ approach to the teaching of ethical issues” (Flynn & Barry, 2010 , p. 2). As Sunderland ( 2013 , p. 1771) points out, while ethics is meant to be a central component of the contemporary engineering curriculum, it is often perceived as “a marginal requirement to be fulfilled.”

Cultural Level

Having examined the practices and beliefs manifest at the individual, institutional and policy levels of engineering education, the attention is now moved to the structural forces related to the culture of engineering and engineering education affecting them. First, we establish the legitimacy of the concept of engineering culture, before exploring how the culture of engineering education is understood and its implications for identity development.

Engineering Disciplinary Culture

We are guided in the use of the concept of “culture” by the definition provided by Schein ( 1992 , p. 12) and popularised in engineering education research by Godfrey and Parker ( 2010 ), according to which culture is understood as

a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

As Godfrey ( 2009 , p. 3) points out, this definition focuses on “the deepest, unconscious level of basic beliefs and assumptions, which underpins the more visible cultural manifestations”.

The characteristics of the scientific culture were first cast by Snow ( 1959 ) in opposition to the literary culture. Snow argues that scientists and literary intellectuals exist as distinct “cultures in the anthropological sense […], linked by common habits, common assumptions, and a common way of life”. The distinction made by Snow ( 1959 ) between the two cultures overlaps with a 200-year-old hierarchisation of sciences, according to which natural sciences are placed at the top of the hierarchy, and social sciences are found at the bottom (Budd, 1989 ; Cole, 1983 ). Despite the diffusion of different hierarchies of sciences, they shared the belief that some fields of research, indicated as “harder”, follow a more rigorous research method and are more reliant on data and theories than other fields, described as “softer”, which are ruled by sociological and psychological factors (Fanelli, 2010 ).

The distinction between “hard” and “soft” sciences touches on the duality between engineering and natural sciences, on one hand, and humanities and social sciences, on the other. It alludes to a valorisation of the “hard” over the “soft” (Storer, 1967 ), as well as conveying gendered connotations (Keller, 1985 ). Footnote 5 “Hard” sciences are considered superior to “soft” sciences (Becher & Trowler, 2001 , p. 192 Footnote 6 ; Gardner, 2013 ), which prompted Cassell ( 2002 , p. 179) to remark that in the use of “a barely disguised (tautological) phallic metaphor, ‘hard’ science is more scientific than ‘soft’.” Referring to the “hard” versus “soft” dichotomy, Biglan ( 1973 ) notes that this terminology was meant to capture the level of paradigmatic consensus among the individuals within a specific discipline. According to Biglan ( 1973 , p. 202, 210), there is more consensus in the “hard” disciplines in the adoption of a common framework of content and method, while in “soft” disciplines content and method tend to be idiosyncratic.

This conceptualisation of academic disciplines highlights the isomorphism of the different disciplinary cultures, which transcends fields of specialization, institutional affiliations, or geographical characteristics (Becher, 1981 , p. 109; Becher, 1994 , pp. 153–155; Becher & Trowler, 2001 ). The distinctiveness of the engineering disciplinary culture appears to be rooted in common practices and behaviours (Godfrey & Parker, 2010 , p. 5), while its homogeneity is linked to the role played by professional and regulatory bodies in determining how disciplinary knowledge practices are translated into curriculum material (Ashwin, 2009 ). What emerges is the legitimacy of talking about a scientifically-oriented culture specific to engineering (Meiksins, 2007 , p. 121), which can be “readily recognised from both inside and out” (Herkert, 2001 , p. 410).

Contending Paradigms of Engineering Education

The paradigmatic nature of engineering presupposes a high degree of consensus and a tightly structured subject matter, which is considered to affect the instructors’ teaching beliefs and practices (Braxton & Hargens, 1996 ; Braxton et al., 1998 ; Jones, 2011 ). Reflecting on the sociotechnical divide posited by Snow ( 1959 ) and Petrina ( 2003 , p. 70) considers that the two cultures are reflected in engineering education. Brint et al.’s ( 2008 ) survey confirms the existence of two cultures of undergraduate academic engagement rooted in differences between academic majors. The culture of engagement specific to the humanities and social sciences is characterised by individual assertion and interest in ideas and societal aspects, while in natural sciences and engineering, students engage more in problem-solving courses that target the development of quantitative competencies (Brint et al., 2008 , p. 390; Cech, 2014 ; Godfrey, 2003 ). There seems to also be two cultures of assessment and grading, with differences reported in instructors’ attitudes towards technical versus nontechnical disciplines (Barnes et al., 2001 ).

More recently, Jamison et al ( 2014 ) proposed a tripartite analysis of the different cultures shaping engineering education and their associated views on engineers’ identity. It comprises the academic paradigm of engineering as applied science, which upholds a technical oriented engineering identity, the market-driven paradigm promoting the identity of engineers as innovators and entrepreneurs, and finally, the integrative paradigm of engineering as public service that fosters the identity of students as social reformers and agents of change. Although the latter paradigm represents “a more balanced or comprehensive approach,” it featured less prominently in the history of engineering education or in programs of educational reform (Jamison et al., 2014 , p. 255). As Wicklein ( 1997 , p. 72) remarks, there is little curricular innovation in engineering education, which broadly resembles older vocational models focused on “the technical aspects of selected tools and materials.”

The implications for ethics teaching become apparent. Empirical research on the culture of engineering education (Cech, 2014 ; Godfrey, 2014 ; Godfrey & Parker, 2010 ; Schiff et al., 2021 ) confirms the valorisation of the technical and the marginalisation of the societal dimension of engineering. Tormey et al., ( 2015 , p. 2) notes that students’ declining moral reasoning is the outcome of the culture within their institution, as courses with ethical content are “swimming against the hidden cultural tide of the programme as a whole”. Kim et al ( 2018 ) found a pervasive unreflective disengagement of engineering students rooted in a lack of reflection around the ethical or moral dimensions of a given decision or situation. The culture of disengagement and value neutrality manifest in engineering education is the reflection of a profession-wide phenomenon (Cech, 2014 ; Riley, 2008 ), which deems anything outside the technical “to be of lesser value or outside the scope of engineering” (Niles et al., 2020b , p. 498).

It appears then that the culture of engineering education has been articulated in terms of a dominant discourse focused on science (Meiksins, 2007 ), to the exclusion of alternative discourses of philosophy and ethics, environmental studies, politics or sociology (Johnston et al., 1996 , p. 33; Pawley, 2008 ).

Generative Engineering Identity

The value of Jamison et al.’s ( 2014 ) tripartite analysis of engineering education is that it allows us to link the different paradigms of engineering education to different conceptions of what it means to be an engineer, thus positing a generative view of engineering identity. By engineering identity is understood who counts as an engineer, what does performing the role of an engineer entail and what are the responsibilities of engineers (Murphy et al., 2015 ).

Engineering identity is typically portrayed as singular and homogenous, rather than as “many types or manifestations” (Rodriguez et al., 2018 , p. 259). As such, engineering identity appears to be largely determined by one’s disciplinary culture (Ashwin, 2009 ; Becher & Trowler, 2001 ; Biglan, 1973 ; Toma, 1997 ; Umbach, 2007 ). Engineering education enculturates students into a well-established system of practices, meanings and beliefs, while they learn what it means to be an engineer and what is valued by the discipline (Brint et al., 2008 , p. 394). In a similar manner, Meijknecht and van Drongelen ( 2004 , p. 448) compare the monolithic identity of engineers rooted in education to that of professions such as medicine, considering that “university is a place of initiation for the tribe of engineers”. As Stonyer ( 2002 , p. 397) points out, academic enculturation leads to a specific dominant socio-historical engineering identity, as “nuts and bolts” technicists (Faulkner, 2007 ).

Although distinct concepts, the articulation of the features of the dominant engineering culture and discourse, engineering education paradigm and engineering identity converge towards a similar valorisation of the technical over the social in engineering education. The cultural identity of engineering reflected in the curriculum is of a more rigorous, difficult and complex discipline, a masculine field, fit for those who excel in mathematics and the physical sciences, devoid of subjectivity, and with a low concern towards societal issues (Carberry & Baker, 2018 ; Cech, 2014 ; Godfrey & Parker, 2010 ; Pawley, 2008 ; Stevens et al., 2007 ; Stonyer, 2002 ; Tonso, 1999 ).

These cultural characteristics of engineering are seen to, on one hand, influence the development of an engineering identity as “nuts and bolts” technicists (Faulkner, 2007 ), according to which engineers are distinguished as an occupational group in light of their technical and scientific expertise (Trevelyan, 2014 ; Meiksins, 2007 , p. 122), and on the other hand, are reflected in the overemphasis of technical and scientific aspects in the engineering curriculum to the exclusion of ethical and societal concerns (Bucciarelli, 2008 ; Jamison et al., 2014 ; Johnston et al., 1996 ; Stevens et al., 2007 ). The culture of engineering education appears to promote the dichotomy between “hard” and “soft” skills (Martin, 2020 ), according to which ethics is a “fuzzy” subject (McGinn, 2003 ), falling outside the scope of “real engineering” (Polmear et al., 2018 ) and considered “not very important” or of an “inferior quality” (Lönngren, 2021 ). Thus, what emerges for the purpose of the present analysis is a collective understanding of what it is to be an engineer and educate an engineer as a key generative mechanism for explaining the state and status of engineering ethics education.

Nevertheless, as Tonso ( 1996 , p. 218) points out, culture is an everchanging system of meaning, which holds the promise for improving engineering education towards more inclusive ways or a broader understanding of the engineer’s societal role. We already witness efforts in this direction, represented by non-mainstream currents in engineering that engage the social and ethical dimensions, evidenced by research in engineering studies and practices like community engagement (Lucena et al, 2010 ; Schneider et al., 2008 ), humanitarian engineering (Lucena et al., 2003 ; Mazzurco & Daniel, 2020 ), decolonial movements (Cordeiro Cruz, 2021 ; Kutay et al., 2018 ) or social justice (Baillie, 2020 ; Karwat, 2020 ; Karwat et al., 2015 ; Larsen & Gärdebo, 2017 ; Nieusma, 2013 ; Niles et al., 2020a ; Riley, 2008 ). Footnote 7

Conclusion and Recommendations

The aim of our analysis was to develop deeper levels for understanding engineering ethics education (Mc Evoy & Richards, 2006 , p. 69). We regarded this analysis of the current state and status of engineering ethics education as a prerequisite for suggesting strategies for change towards a socio-technical paradigm of engineering education that could lead to a curricular orientation for ethics. Following Wynne ( 2014 , p. 1479), we understand by “orientation” the acceptance of an attitude, of a way of doing things and of operationalising core values.

We argued that engineering ethics education is a complex system, constitutive of various beliefs and practices, which are manifest at different levels. The different levels of engineering ethics education rendered in Table 1 are connected. The analysis showed how the beliefs and practices of individual instructors are impacted by institutional measures and policies set by accrediting bodies, as well as by the cultural milieu in which they were educated or currently teach, while also playing a role in shaping the engineering curriculum. Instructors justify their curricular choices according to their vision of what engineering practice is (Monteiro, 2016 ; Quinlan, 2002 ) and their understanding of engineers’ responsibilities (Downey et al., 2007 ). This has implications for generating change in engineering education, as the instructors’ belief systems influence the diffusion of innovations in engineering education (Boland, 2014 ; Carew & Mitchell, 2002 ; Froyd et al., 2008 ; Quinlan, 2002 ; Seymour, 2002 ; Sonnert, 2007 ; Spalter-Roth & Meiksins, 2008 ). Thus, change in teaching practices often requires forming new collective identities about what is valued in engineering education (Carberry & Baker, 2018 ; Godfrey, 2014 ; Quinlan, 2002 ).

At the same time, issues related to the purpose of engineering education and the perception of ethics in the engineering curriculum arise at each level. Recalling Snow ( 1959 ), the findings of the analysis reveal the existence of two distinct cultures reflected at the surface level of the engineering curriculum, pointing to ethics’ lesser status. As such, ethics has been articulated as a “soft” and “non-essential” feature of engineering education, a curricular “add-on” implemented in a non-systematic manner and surrounded by a degree of confusion as to its conceptualization and application. The development of technical acumen, on the other hand, is regarded as an essential part of engineering education, and is at the centre of curricular design (Goold, 2015 ; Martin, 2020 ).

To dismantle the two cultures existing in engineering education, it is imperative to move from a non-essential status given to ethics towards a socio-technical orientation of the engineering curriculum for ethics. Engineering education for ethics is a transformative process, which aims to challenge existing core assumptions and values promoted in engineering education (Cranton, 2006 ; Mezirow, 1978 , 1991 ; Sheppard et al., 2009 ). Although many studies focused on the transformation of higher education, and specifically on higher education for sustainability (Filho et al., 2018 ; Holmberg et al., 2012 ; Trowler et al., 2013 ), the question of the integration of the ideal of engineering education for ethics has been largely ignored, highlighting a potential area for further research.

Furthermore, it has been remarked that change strategies need to link different levels for generating a long-lasting transformation (Graham, 2012 ; Hannah & Lester, 2009 ). When aiming to effect change, it is important to take a systemic rather than a linear approach (Sterling, 2004 ), which implies thinking “vertically, about interdependencies at higher and lower levels” (Trowler, 2008 , pp. 155–157). Our undertaking to identify the different types of agents and forces shaping engineering education is a necessary first step. As Rover ( 2008 , p. 389) notes, the key to change is first understanding “what we are”, and then taking steps towards “what we are capable of becoming”. Building on this, it is imperative to examine the role of each in the socio-technical orientation of engineering education for ethics, towards a “hybrid” and “comprehensive” paradigm that integrates the scientific, technical, social, political and environmental dimensions of engineering, as envisioned by Jamison et al ( 2014 ) and van den Hoven ( 2019 ).

At cultural level, there is a need for determining the different professional identities actively promoted by engineering programmes, as well as the meanings imparted through the ethos fostered in institutions and the structure of the engineering curricula. Patrick and Borrego ( 2016 , p. 4) point out that studies of identity development tend to use a narrow definition and do not give credence to the socio-cultural and environmental factors that shape “becoming” in the process of “doing” engineering. While discussing the factors affecting engineering identity development, Morelock ( 2017 , p. 1250) recalls only one study (Paretti & Mc Nair, 2012 ) which points to the discourse that challenges or reinforces extant engineering identities as a directional factor shaping the type of engineering identity that students might develop. Following Morelock ( 2017 , p. 1256), we stress the importance for researching engineering identity development to “examine how frameworks that define individual engineering identity harmonise with how societal conditions have shaped collective engineering identity in participants’ national contexts”. A further aspect to be considered is researching the effects of different methods of implementing and teaching ethics on the development of a socio-technical identity of engineering students, resonating with efforts conducted by Johnson et al. ( 2016 ), Leidens et al. ( 2018 ) and Jesiek et al. ( 2019 ). More so, as Nieusma and Cieminski ( 2018 ) note, engineering education reformers committed to centering ethics discourse should take a curriculum wide approach focused on the cohesiveness of the diverse components making up students’ educational cultures and not just individualized student knowledge about ethics or capacities for moral reasoning. Achieving this would require bringing to the forefront examples of best practices in centring ethics within the institutional culture, similar to the examples of curricular redesign presented by Riley et al. ( 2004 ) and Mitcham and Englehardt ( 2019 ).

At policy level, research has revealed the impact of national accrediting bodies on increasing the weight given to ethics in the engineering curriculum (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Lattuca et al., 2006 ; Skinner et al., 2007 ). Yet, little is still known on how to maximise the evaluation of ethics in accreditation as to assist programmes in a more systematic implementation (Barry & Ohland, 2012 ; Bielefeldt et al., 2016 ; Herkert, 2002 ; LeBlanc, 2002 ). Further research is needed for exploring what counts as effective feedback provided by accrediting bodies and how to prepare members of accreditation panels to offer constructive feedback and recommendations targeting the ethical criterion for accreditation.

At the institutional level, upon highlighting the need for a systematic implementation of ethics (Flynn & Barry, 2010 ; Lambrechts et al., 2013 ; Murphy et al., 2019 ; Newberry, 2004 ; Polmear et al., 2018 ), it is crucial to research strategies for curriculum redesign and identify examples of best practices in the development of a holistic and comprehensive educational model. Recent years saw growing debates and research on education for sustainability (Filho et al., 2018 ; Holmberg et al., 2012 ; Trowler et al., 2013 ) and similar attention should be given to engineering education for ethics. Given the limited research available on curricular alignment and quality insurance in engineering ethics education (Bombaerts et al., 2019 ; Hess & Fore, 2018 ; Keefer et al., 2014 ; Li & Fu, 2012 ; Romkey, 2015 ), we highlight the need for further research to explore the effectiveness and coherence between the implementation, teaching, assessment methods, the goals and theoretical frameworks envisioned for engineering ethics education. More specifically, research should illuminate ways to ensure curricular alignment between theoretical frameworks, the institutional vision, learning goals, content themes, teaching and assessment methods.

At individual level, we recommend additional research exploring instructors’ understanding of what falls under the scope of engineering ethics education and the goals employed, to illuminate whether ethics instructors adopt any of the various theoretical conceptualisations of ethics developed or whether a common-sense understanding of ethics prevails. In terms of the former, further research could help determine which ethics learning goals are favoured by instructors. This should be complemented by researching the attainment of these goals, given that “ethical awareness has not been demonstrated to translate reliably into ethical behaviour” (Bairaktarova & Woodcock, 2017 , p. 1130). As pointed out by Martin et al. ( 2021 ) and Bombaerts et al. ( 2021 ), metrics of evaluating the effectiveness of different teaching approaches are still underdeveloped.

Given the need for more guidance in engineering ethics instruction, a recommended avenue for further research is to provide an in-depth exploration of the challenges experienced by instructors when teaching and assessing ethics. It is equally important to examine the impact of different strategies in countering these challenges, as well as the role of funding streams dedicated to engineering ethics education research, of independent support initiatives, of repositories such as the Online Ethics Center, or working groups on ethics affiliated with international societies of engineering education such as SEFI or ASEE. The extensive literature that is the object of this review is based in the US, with several empirical studies coming from projects which received the financial support of the National Science Foundation. This seems to point to the importance of a dedicated funding stream for engineering education research with cascading effects on the education of engineering ethics, to be replicated as a policy strategy in other geographical contexts.

Following Kim et al.’s ( 2018 ) and Niles et al.’s ( 2020b ) suggestion, further research is also needed to understand why engineering students are disengaged from the societal and public welfare role of engineering, and which strategies can reverse this trend. It is also important to examine the effectiveness of various teaching approaches for enhancing students’ reception of the subject, given that it was identified as a challenge for engineering ethics instructors (Harding et al., 2009 ; Polmear et al., 2018 ; Romkey, 2015 ). Additionally, this might require research targeted at developing curriculum materials, guidelines and textbooks (Reed et al., 2004 ), consistent with empirical findings on the effectiveness of different teaching methods. A particular focus should be given to empirical research on the design and application of different typology of case studies (Martin et al., 2021 ), given the popularity of this teaching method (Bagdasarov et al., 2013 ; Lundeberg, 2008; Abaté, 2011 ; Romkey, 2015 ; Thiel et al., 2013 ; Yadav & Barry, 2009 ).

An agenda for a socio-technical orientation of engineering education for ethics would thus call to:

clarify the underlying paradigm driving the development of engineering education initiatives and programmes,

reconceptualise what it means to be an engineer and to educate an engineer, for developing a socio-technical professional identity,

enhance the role of humanities, social sciences, science and technology studies or liberal arts studies in engineering education,

prepare students to engage with public policy, as to enable an engineering practice committed to human welfare, sustainability and social justice,

generate commitment to larger systematic change to established practices over time, rather than suggest heroic responses to management wrongdoing,

foster reflection on how the practices of engineers impact and are impacted by their socio-cultural environment and how they can be changed,

ask how engineering education and society can change together in a mutually affirming way, towards more sustainable patterns for both (Sterling, 2004 , p. 67),

address the organisational, political and socio-economic factors that impinge on engineering practices and provide a theoretical lens for understanding them.

We want to thank Carl Mitcham for the suggestion that engineering might have been considered as morally good.

Henceforth, abbreviated as VSD.

The authors want to thank the anonymous reviewer #7 for this interpretation.

Thank you to Reviewer #7 for suggesting the inclusion of peer support networks.

Referring to the cultural dichotomies between natural and social sciences, (Keller, 1985 ) observes an assumption present in scientific practice between objectivity, reason, and mind, which are cast as male features, and subjectivity, feeling, and nature, which are perceived as female features.

Becher & Trowler ( 2001 , p.192) remarked that soft disciplines are “seen internally as politically weak and externally as lacking in good intellectual standing”, which “has rendered the social sciences especially vulnerable to attack from unsympathetic external forces”.

We to thank the anonymous reviewer #5 for highlighting the role of current non-mainstream movements in effecting change.

Abaté, C. J. (2011). Should engineering ethics be taught? Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (3), 583–596.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, R., Martin, S., & Boom, K. (2018). University culture and sustainability: Designing and implementing an enabling framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171 , 434–445.

Alpay, E. (2011). Student-inspired activities for the teaching and learning of engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (4), 1455–1468.

Ashwin, P. (2008). Accounting for structure and agency in ‘close-up’ research on teaching, learning and assessment in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (3), 151–158.

Ashwin, P. (2009). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency . Continuum.

Google Scholar  

Atesh, M., Baruah, B., & Ward, T. (2017). A new framework for measuring the ethical awareness and perception among engineering students in higher education. In 6th New perspectives in science education , Florence.

Atwood, S. A., & Read-Daily, B. (2015). Using a creative fiction assignment to teach ethics in a first year introduction to engineering course. In Paper presented at 2015 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., MacDougall, A. E., Steele, L. M., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2016). Mental models and ethical decisionmaking: The mediating role of sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics, 138 , 133–144.

Bagdasarov, Z., Thiel, C. E., Johnson, J. F., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L. N., Devenport, L. D., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Case-based ethics instruction: The influence of contextual and individual factors in case content on ethical decisionmaking. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 , 1305–1322.

Baillie, C. (2020). Engineering and social justice. In D. Michelfelder (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of engineering. Routledge.

Bairaktarova, D., & Evangelou, D. (2011). Development of engineering ethics course. In 2011 ASEE annual conference & exposition .

Bairaktarova, D., & Woodcock, A. (2015). Engineering ethics education: Aligning practice and outcomes. IEEE Communications Magazine, 53 (11), 18–22.

Bairaktarova, D., & Woodcock, A. (2017). Engineering students’ ethical awareness and behavior: A new motivational model. Science & Engineering Ethics, 23 (4), 1129–1157.

Balakrishnan, B. & Tarlochan, F. (2015). Engineering students’ attitude towards engineering ethics education. In 2015 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON), Tallinn, 2015 (pp 16–22).

Barnes, L., Bull, K., Campbell, N., & Perry, K. (2001). Effects of academic discipline and teaching goals in predicting grading beliefs among undergraduate teaching faculty. Research in Higher Education, 42 (4), 455–467.

Barry, B. E., & Herkert, J. R. (2014). Engineering ethics. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 673–692). Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

Basart, J. M., & Serra, M. (2013). Engineering ethics beyond engineers’ ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (1), 179–187.

Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6 , 109–112.

Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19 (2), 151–161.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories . Open University Press.

Berne, R. W., & Schummer, J. (2005). Teaching societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology to engineering students through science fiction. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 25 , 459–468.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique . Rowman & Littlefield.

Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J., & Wolfe, H. (2000). Defining the outcomes: A framework for EC-2000. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Education, 43 (2), 100–110.

Bielefeldt, A., & Canney, N. (2016). Changes in the social responsibility attitudes of engineering students over time. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (5), 1535–1551.

Bielefeldt, A. R., Canney, N. E., Swan, C., & Knight, D. (2016). Efficacy of macroethics education in engineering. In 2016 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Bielefeldt, A. R., Polmear, M., Canney, N. E., Swan, C., & Knight, D. (2019). Institutional variations in ethics and societal impacts education: Practices and sufficiency perceptions among engineering educators. In 2019 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Bielefeldt, A. R., Polmear, M., Knight, D., Canney, N., & Swan, C. (2019b). Disciplinary variations in ethics and societal impact topics taught in courses for engineering students. ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice., 154 (4), 04019007.

Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 , 204–213.

Boland, J. A. (2014). Orientations to civic engagement: Insights into the sustainability of a challenging pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (1), 180–195.

Bolden, K. F. (2007). Applying logic modelling to the higher education accreditation process (Doctoral dissertation).

Bombaerts, G., Doulougeri, K. I., & Nieveen, N. M. (2019). Quality of ethics education in engineering programs using Goodlad’s curriculum typology. In Proceedings of the SEFI 47th annual conference (pp. 1424–1436).

Bombaerts, G., Doulougeri, K., Tsui, S., Laes, E., Spahn, A., & Martin, D. A. (2021). Engineering students as co-creators in an ethics of technology course. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27 , 48.

Bombaerts, G., & Nickel, P. J. (2017). Feedback for relatedness and competence: Can feedback in blended learning contribute to optimal rigor, basic needs, and motivation? In 2017 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1089–1092).

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. In American society for engineering education annual conference .

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

Borrego, M., & Cutler, S. (2010). Constructive alignment of interdisciplinary graduate curriculum in engineering and science: An analysis of successful IGERT proposals. Journal of Engineering Education, 99 (4), 355–369.

Bowen, W. R. (2009). Engineering ethics: Outline of an aspirational approach . Berlin: Springer.

Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of research and theory (Vol. 11, pp. 1–46). Agathon Press.

Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39 (3), 299–318.

Brint, S., Cantwell, A. M., & Hanneman, R. A. (2008). The two cultures of undergraduate academic engagement. Research in Higher Education, 49 (5), 383–402.

Bucciarelli, L. (2008). Ethics and engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33 (2), 141–149.

Budd, J. M. (1989). Research in the two cultures: The nature of scholarship in science and humanities. Collection Management, 11 (3–4), 1–21.

Burton, E., Goldsmith, J., & Mattei, N. (2018). How to teach computer ethics through science fiction. Communications of the ACM, 61 (8), 54–64.

Bybee, R. W. (2003). Achieving technological literacy: Educational perspectives & political actions. In G. Martin & H. Middleton (Eds.), Initiatives in technology education: Comparative perspectives (pp. 171–180). Griffith University.

Canney, N. E., & Bielefeldt, A. R. (2016). Validity and reliability evidence of the engineering professional responsibility assessment tool. Journal of Engineering Education, 105 , 452–477.

Canney, N. E., Polmear, M., Bielefeldt, A. R., Knight, D., Swan, C., & Simon, E. (2017). Challenges and opportunities: Faculty views on the state of macroethical education in engineering. In ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Carberry, A. R., & Baker, D. R. (2018). The impact of culture on engineering and engineering education. In Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education. Innovations in science education and technology. (Vol. 24). Springer.

Carew, A. L., & Mitchel, C. A. (2002). Characterising undergraduate engineering students’ understanding of sustainability. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27 (4), 349–361.

Cassell, J. (2002). Perturbing the system: “Hard science”, “soft science”, and social science, the anxiety and madness of method. Human Organization, 61 (2), 177–185.

Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology and Human Values, 39 (1), 42–72.

Chance, S., Lawlor, R., Direito, I. & Mitchell, J. (2021). Above and beyond: Ethics and responsibility in civil engineering. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education , 26 (1), 93–116.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2006). Regulation or responsibility? Autonomy, moral imagination, and engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31 (3), 237–260.

Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (3), 327–338.

Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1), 111–139.

Conlon, E. (2011). Macro, micro, structure, agency: Analysing approaches to engineering ethics. In SEFI annual conference.

Conlon, E. (2015). A critical realist approach to engineering ethics. In IEEE international symposium on technology and society (ISTAS ).

Conlon, E., & Zandvoort, H. (2011). Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (2), 217–232.

Cordeiro Cruz, C. (2021) Brazilian grassroots engineering: A decolonial approach to engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education .

Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

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

Davis, M. (2012). A plea for judgment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (4), 789–808.

Davis, M., & Feinerman, A. (2012). Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (2), 351–367.

Davis, C., & Yadav, A. (2014). Case studies in engineering. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 161–180). Cambridge University Press.

Devon, R. (1999). Toward a social ethics of engineering: The norms of engagement. Journal of Engineering Education, 88 , 87–92.

Dien, Y., Dechy, N., & Guillaume, E. (2012). Accident investigation: From searching direct causes to finding in-depth causes—Problem of analysis or/and of analyst? Safety Science, 50 (6), 1398–1407.

Dien, Y., Llory, M., & Montmayeul, R. (2004). Organisational accidents investigation methodology and lessons learned. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 111 (1–3), 147–153.

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

Ehrlich, T. (2010). Civic responsibility and higher education . Oryx Press.

Fabregat, J. (2013). Explicit training in human values and social attitudes of future engineers in Spain. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (4), 1551–1556.

Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 5 (4), e10068.

Faulkner, W. (2007). “Nuts and bolts and people”: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37 (3), 331–356.

Filho, W. L., Raath, S., Lazzarini, B., Vargas, V., Souza, L. D., Anholon, R., & Orlovic, V. (2018). The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199 , 286–295.

Finelli, C., Holsapple, M., Ra, E., Bielby, R., Burt, B., Carpenter, D., Harding, T., & Sutkus, J. (2012). An assessment of engineering students’ curricular and co-curricular experiences and their ethical development. Journal of Engineering Education, 101 (3), 469–494.

Flynn, R & Barry, J. (2010). Teaching ethics to engineers—Reflections on an interdisciplinary approach. In 3rd International symposium for engineering education . University College Cork.

Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. ACM Interactions, 3 (6), 17–23.

Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value sensitive design and information systems. In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 55–95). Springer.

Frigo, G., Marthaler, F., Albers, A., Ott, S. & Hillerbrand R. (2021). Training responsible engineers. Phronesis and the role of virtues in teaching engineering ethics. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (1), 25–37.

Froyd, J., Beach, A., Henderson, C., & Finkelstein, N. (2008). Improving educational change agents’ efficacy in science, engineering, and mathematics education. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Integrating the sciences and society: Challenges, practices, and potentials (Research in social problems and public policy, 16) (pp. 227–255). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Gardner, S. K. (2013). Paradigmatic differences, power, and status: A qualitative investigation of faculty in one interdisciplinary research collaboration on sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 8 , 241–252.

Génova, G., & González, M. R. (2015). Teaching ethics to engineers: A Socratic experience. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (2), 567–580.

Godfrey, E. (2003). A theoretical model of the engineering education culture: A tool for change. In American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition .

Godfrey, E. (2009). Exploring the culture of engineering education: The journey. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 15 (1), 1–12.

Godfrey, E. (2014). Understanding disciplinary cultures. In A. Johri & B. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 437–456). Cambridge University Press.

Godfrey, E., & Parker, L. (2010). Mapping the cultural landscape in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99 (1), 5–22.

Goldin, I. M., Ashley, K. D., & Pinkus, R. L. (2006). Assessing case analyses in bioengineering ethics education: Reliability and training. In Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on engineering education .

Goldin, I. M., Pinkus, R. L., & Ashley, K. (2015). Validity and reliability of an instrument for assessing case analyses in bioengineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (3), 789–807.

Goold, E. (2015). Professional formation of engineers: Enhancing the first year student experience. In European society for engineering education annual conference

Gorman, M. E. (2001). Turning students into ethical professionals. In IEEE Technology and Society (pp. 21–27).

Gorman, M. E., Mehalik, M. M., & Werhane, P. H. (2000). Ethical and environmental challenges to engineering . Prentice Hall.

Graham, R. (2012). Achieving excellence in engineering education: Ingredients of successful change . Royal Academy of Engineering.

Gwynne-Evans, A. J., Junaid, S., & Chetty, M. (2021). Repositioning ethics at the heart of engineering graduate attributes. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (1), 7–24.

Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (1), 34–48.

Harding, T. S., Sutkus, J., Finelli, C., & Carpenter, D. (2009). Engineering culture and the ethical development of undergraduate students. In Proceedings of the research in engineering education symposium 2009 .

Harding, T. S., Carpenter, D. D., & Finelli, C. J. (2013). Two years later: A longitudinal look at the impact of engineering ethics education. In Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE annual conference and exposition.

Harris, C. E., Davis, M., Prichard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1996). Engineering ethics: What? Why? How? Journal of Engineering Education, 85 (2), 93–96.

Harris, C. E. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14 , 153–164.

Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., James, R. W., Englehardt, E. E., & Rabins, M. J. (2019). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Haviland, D. (2014). Beyond compliance: Using organizational theory to unleash the potential of assessment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38 (9), 755–765.

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

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

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

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

Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11 , 375–385.

Hess, J. L., Beever, J., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2017). Empathic perspective-taking and ethical decision-making in engineering ethics education. In D. Michelfelder, B. Newberry, & Q. Zhu (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering. Philosophy of engineering and technology. (Vol. 26). Springer.

Hess, J. L., & Fila, N. D. (2016). The development and growth of empathy among engineering students. In Paper presented at 2016 ASEE annual conference & exposition .

Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. A. (2018). A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (2), 551–583.

Heywood, J. (2005). Engineering education research and development in curriculum and instruction . Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Book   Google Scholar  

Hillerbrand, R., & Roeser, S. (2016). Towards a third ‘practice turn’: An inclusive and empirically informed perspective on risk. In M. Franssen, P. Vermaas, P. Kroes, & A. Meijers (Eds.), Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Springer.

Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83 , 775–796.

Holmberg, J., Lundqvist, U., Svanström, M., & Arehag, M. (2012). The university and transformation towards sustainability: The strategy used at Chalmers University of Technology. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13 (3), 219–231.

Holsapple, M. A., Carpenter, D. D., Sutkus, J. A., Finelli, C. J., & Harding, T. S. (2012). Framing faculty and student discrepancies in engineering ethics education delivery. Journal of Engineering Education, 101 , 169–186.

Institution of Engineers, Australia. (1997). Policy on accreditation of professional engineering courses . IEAust.

Itani, M. (2013). The effectiveness of videos as a learning tool in an engineering ethics course: A students’ perspective. In American society for engineering education annual conference .

Jamison, A., Kolmos, A., & Holgaard, J. E. (2014). Hybrid learning: An integrative approach to engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 103 (2), 253–273.

Jesiek, B. K., Buswell, N. T., Mazzurco, A. (2019). Toward a typology of the sociotechnical in engineering practice. In Proceedings of the eighth research in engineering education symposium: REES2019 (pp. 597–606).

Johnston S. F., & Eager, D. B. (2001). Engineering as social and ethical practice: The role of new course accreditation requirements. In Proceedings international symposium on technology and society (pp. 221–225).

Johnson, K., Leydens, L., Moskal, B. & Kianbakht, S. (2016). Gear switching: From “technical vs. social” to “sociotechnical” in an introductory control systems course. In 2016 American control conference (ACC) (pp. 6640–6645).

Johnston, S. F., Lee, A., & McGregor, H. (1996). Engineering as captive discourse. Society for Philosophy and Technology, 1 , 3–4.

Johnston, S. F., McGregor, H., & Taylor, E. (2000). Practice-focused ethics in Australian engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25 (4), 315–324.

Jones, W. A. (2011). Variation among academic disciplines: An update on analytical frameworks and research. Journal of the Professoriate, 6 (1), 10.

Kang, H., & Lundeberg, M. A. (2010). Participation in science practices while working in a multimedia case-based environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 , 1116–1136.

Karwat, D. M. A. (2020). Self-reflection for activist engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 1329–1352.

Karwat, D. M. A., Eagle, W. E., Wooldridge, M. S., & Princen, T. E. (2015). Activist engineering: Changing engineering practice by deploying praxis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 , 227–239.

Keefer, M., Wilson, S., Dankowicz, H., & Loui, M. (2014). The importance of formative assessment in science and engineering ethics education: Some evidence and practical advice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20 (1), 249–260.

Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science . Yale University Press.

Kim, D., Odom, P. W., Zoltowski, C. B. & Jesiek, B. K. (2018). Investigating moral disengagement among first-year engineering students. In 2018 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–7).

Klassen, M. (2018). The politics of accreditation: A comparison of the engineering profession in five anglosphere countries. Master Thesis. Available at https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/82894

Kline, R. (2001). Using history and sociology to teach engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society, 20 (4), 13–20.

Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., & Kinzie, J. (2015). Beyond compliance: Making assessment matter. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 47 (5), 8–17.

Kumar, P., Shukla, B., & Passey, D. (2020). Impact of accreditation on quality and excellence of higher education institutions. Investigación Operacional, 41 (2), 151.

Kutay, C., Gunay, B., & Tobin, C. (2018). Cross-cultural construction engineering with Aboriginal communities. In 29th Australasian association for engineering education conference 2018 (AAEE 2018) (pp. 387–394). Engineers Australia.

Lambrechts, W., Mulà, I., Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., & Gaeremynck, V. (2013). The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: An analysis of bachelor programs in management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48 , 65–73.

Larsen, K., & Gärdebo, J. (2017). Retooling engineering for social justice: The use of explicit models for analytical thinking, critical reflection, and peer-review in Swedish engineering education. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace, 5 (1), 13–29.

Lattuca, L.R., Terenzini, P.T., & Volkwein, J.F. (2006). Engineering change: Findings from a study of the impact of EC2000 , Final Report. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context . Jossey-Bass.

Lawlor, R. (2021). Teaching engineering ethics: A dissenting voice. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (1), 38–46.

Layne, L. L., Vostral, S. L., & Boyer, K. (2010). Feminist technology (Vol. 4). University of Illinois Press.

LeBlanc, S. E. (2002). EC 2000 from both sides of the fence. In Proceedings of the 2002 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition.

Lewis, S. E. (2016). Perceptions of university faculty regarding accreditation in a college of education (Doctoral dissertation).

Leydens, J. A., & Johnson, K., & Claussen, S., & Blacklock, J., & Moskal, B. M., & Cordova, O. (2018). Measuring change over time in sociotechnical thinking: A survey/validation model for sociotechnical habits of mind. In Paper presented at 2018 ASEE annual conference & exposition .

Li, J., & Fu, S. (2012). A systematic approach to engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (2), 339–349.

Little, C. S. (2019). Lived experiences in accreditation: the influence of accreditation decisions on change implementation  (Doctoral Dissertation).

Lloyd, P., & van de Poel, I. (2008). Designing games to teach ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14 (3), 433–447.

Loh, J. (2019). What is feminist philosophy of technology? A critical overview and a plea for a feminist technoscientific Utopia. In J. Loh & M. Coeckelbergh (Eds.), Feminist philosophy of technology. Techno:Phil—Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie. (Vol. 2). J.B. Metzler.

Lönngren, J. (2021). Exploring the discursive construction of ethics in an introductory engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 110 , 44–69.

Lönngren, J., Adawi, T., Berge, M., Huff, J. L., Murzi, H., Direito, I., Tormey, R., & Sultan, U. (2020). Emotions in engineering education: Towards a research agenda. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2020 , 1–5.

Loui, M. C. (2000). Fieldwork and cooperative learning in professional ethics. Teaching Philosophy, 23 (2), 139–156.

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

Loui, M. C. (2009). What can students learn in an extended role-play simulation on technology and society? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29 (1), 37–47.

Lucena, J., & Gosink, J., & Moskal, B. (2003). Humanitarian engineering at The Colorado School of Mines: An example of multidisciplinary engineering. In Paper presented at 2003 annual conference .

Lucena, J., Schneider, J., & Leydens, J. (2010). Engineering and sustainable community development . Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

Lumgair, B. (2018). The effectiveness of webinars in professional skills and engineering ethics education in large online classes. In 2018 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Lynch, W. T. (1997). Teaching engineering ethics in the United States. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 16 (4), 27–36.

Lynch, W. T., & Kline, R. (2000). Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science Technology and Human Values, 25 (2), 195–225.

Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2013). Ethics in engineering (4th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Book Co.

Martin, D. A. (2020). Towards a sociotechnical reconfiguration of engineering and an education for ethics: A critical realist investigation into the patterns of education and accreditation of ethics in engineering programmes in Ireland (Doctoral dissertation). Technological University Dublin. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/engdoc/126/

Martin, D. A., Conlon, E., & Bowe, B. (2019). The role of role-play in student awareness of the social dimension of the engineering profession. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44 (6), 882–905.

Martin, D. A., Conlon, E., & Bowe, B. (2020). Exploring the curricular content of engineering ethics education in Ireland. In 2020 IFEES world engineering education forum—Global engineering deans council (WEEF-GEDC) (pp. 1–5).

Martin, D. A., Conlon, E. & Bowe, B. (2021). Using case studies in engineering ethics education: The case for immersive scenarios through stakeholder engagement and real life data. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (1), 47–63.

Mazzurco, A., & Daniel, S. (2020). Socio-technical thinking of students and practitioners in the context of humanitarian engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 109 , 243–261.

McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11 , 66–78.

McGinn, R. (2003). Mind the gaps: An empirical approach to engineering ethics 1997–2001. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9 (4), 517–542.

Meijknecht, T., & van Drongelen, H. (2004). How is the spirituality of engineering taught or conveyed? International Journal of Engineering Education, 20 (3), 447–451.

Meiksins, P. (2007). Work values, job rewards and the new engineering curriculum. In R. Spalter-Roth, N. Fortenberry, & B. Lovitts (Eds.), The acceptance and diffusion of innovation: A cross-disciplinary approach to instructional and curricular change in engineering. American Sociological Association.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28 (2), 100–110.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning . Jossey-Bass.

Michelfelder, D. P., Wellner, G., & Wiltse, H. (2017). Designing differently: Toward a methodology for an ethics of feminist technology design. In S. O. Hansson (Ed.), The ethics of technology: Methods and approaches (pp. 193–218). Rowman & Littlefield.

Miller, G. (2018). Aiming professional ethics courses toward identity development. In E. E. Englehardt & M. Pritchard (Eds.), Ethics across the curriculum: Pedagogical perspectives. Springer.

Miñano, R., Uruburu, A., Moreno-Romero, A., & Perez-López, D. (2017). Strategies for teaching professional ethics to it engineering degree students and evaluating the result. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1 , 263–286.

Mitcham, C. (2009). A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: From use and convenience to policy engagement. Engineering Studies, 1 (1), 35–53.

Mitcham, C. (2014). The true grand challenge for engineering: Self knowledge. Issues in Science and Technology, 31 (1), 19.

Mitcham, C. (2017). Engineering ethics: From thinking small to deep and big. Colorado School of Mines Faculty Senate Distinguished Lecture, 2017 , 1–30.

Mitcham, C., & Englehardt, E. E. (2019). Ethics across the curriculum: Prospects for broader (and deeper) teaching and learning in research and engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 (6), 1735–1762.

Mok, L., & Hyysalo, S. (2018). Designing for energy transition through value sensitive design. Design Studies, 54 , 162–183.

Monteiro, F. (2016). Include ethics education in the engineering curriculum—The students’ perspective. In 2nd International conference of the portuguese society for engineering education (CISPEE) .

Monteiro, F., Leite, C., & Rocha, C. (2016). Ethics and civic education in the curriculum of engineering courses in Portuguese higher education system. In 8th International symposium on project approaches in engineering education and 14th active learning in engineering education workshop proceedings.

Monteiro, F., Leite, C., & Rocha, C. (2017). The influence of engineers’ training models on ethics and civic education component in engineering courses in Portugal. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42 (2), 156–170.

Monteiro, F., Leite, C., & Rocha, C. (2019). From the dominant engineering education perspective to the aim of promoting service to humanity and the common good: The importance of rethinking engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44 (4), 504–518.

Monteiro, F., & Leite, C. (2021). Increasing the importance of ethics in engineering education in Portugal with accreditation bodies and associations of engineers. SEFI . Retrieved from https://www.sefi.be/2021/02/24/increasing-the-importance-of-ethics-in-engineering-education-in-portugal-with-accreditation-bodies-and-associations-of-engineers/

Morelock, J. R. (2017). A systematic literature review of engineering identity: Definitions, factors, and interventions affecting development, and means of measurement. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42 (6), 1240–1262.

Moriarty, G. (2009). The engineering project: Its nature, ethics, and promise . The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Moskal, B., Knecht, R., & Pavelich, M. (2001). The design report rubric: Assessing the impact of program design on the learning process. Journal for the Art of Teaching: Assessment of Learning, 8 (1), 18–33.

Mouter, N., de Geest, A., & Doorn, N. (2018). A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 122 , 639–648.

Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, M. S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of ethical decision-making measures: Internal and external validity. Ethics and Behavior, 16 (4), 319–345.

Murphy, M., Chance, S., & Conlon, E. (2015). Designing the identities of engineers. In S. H. Christensen, C. Didier, A. Jamison, M. Meganck, C. Mitcham, & B. Newberry (Eds.), Engineering education and practice in context. (Vol. 2). Cham: Springer.

Murphy, M., O’Donnell, P., & Jameson, J. (2019). Business in engineering education: Issues, identities, hybrids, and limits. In S. H. Christensen, B. Delahousse, C. Didier, M. Meganck, & M. Murphy (Eds.), The engineering-business nexus, philosophy of engineering and technology series. (Vol. 32). Springer.

Nair, I., & Bulleit, W. M. (2020). Pragmatism and care in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 65–87.

National Academy of Engineering. (2017). Overcoming challenges to infusing ethics into the development of engineers: Proceedings of a workshop . The National Academies Press.

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

Nieusma, D. (2013). Engineering, social justice, and peace: Strategies for educational and professional reform. In J. Lucena (Ed.), Engineering education for social justice (pp. 19–40). Springer.

Nieusma, D., & Cieminski, M. (2018). Ethics education as enculturation: Student learning of personal, social, and professional responsibility. In Paper presented at 2018 ASEE annual conference & exposition .

Niles, S., Contreras, S., Roudbari, S., Kaminsky, J., & Harrison, J. L. (2020a). Resisting and assisting engagement with public welfare in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 109 , 491–507.

Niles, S., Roudbari, S., & Contreras, S. (2020b). Integrating social justice and political engagement into engineering. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace, 7 (1), 52–64.

Ocone, R. (2013). Engineering ethics and accreditation. Education for Chemical Engineers, 8 (3), e113–e118.

Pantazidou, M., & Nair, I. (1999). Ethic of care: Guiding principles for engineering teaching and practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 88 , 205–212.

Paretti, M. C., & McNair, L. D. (2012). Analyzing the intersections of institutional and discourse identities in engineering work at the local level. Engineering Studies, 4 (1), 55–78.

Patrick, A., & Borrego, M. (2016). A review of the literature relevant to engineering identity. In ASEE annual conference. American Society for Engineering Education.

Pawley , A. L. (2008). What counts as ‘engineering’?: Towards a Redefinition. In C. Baillie, A. Pawley, D. Riley (Eds.) Engineering and social justice: In the university and beyond (pp. 59–85). Purdue University Press.

Pearce, F., & Tombs, S. (1998). Toxic capitalism . Ashgate.

Peters, D. W. (1998). A student’s view of the ABET 2000 criteria. In Proceedings of FIE 1998, 28th annual frontiers in education conference.

Petrina, S. (2003). Two cultures of technical courses and discourses: The case of computer aided design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13 (1), 47–73.

Polmear, M., Bielefeldt, A., Knight, D., Swan, C. & Canney, N. (2018). Faculty perceptions of challenges to educating engineering and computing students about ethics and societal impacts. In Proceeding of the American society for engineering education annual conference exposition . American Society for Engineering Education.

Polmear, M., Bielefeldt, A., Knight, D., Canney, N. & Swan, C. (2019). Analysis of macroethics teaching practices and perceptions in engineering: A cultural comparison. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44 (6), 866–881.

Pritchard, M. S. (2000). Service-learning and engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6 (3), 413–422.

Pritchard, M. S. (2005). Perception and imagination in engineering ethics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21 (3), 415–423.

Quiles-Ramos, S., Riley, D. M., & Akera, A. (2017). WannABET? Historical and organizational perspectives on governance in engineering education. In 2017 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Quinlan, K. M. (2002). Scholarly dimensions of academics’ beliefs about engineering education. Teachers and Teaching, 8 (1), 41–64.

Rabb, R. J., Howison, J., & Skenes, K. (2015). Assessing and developing a first year introduction to a mechanical engineering course. In 2015 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Reed, P. A., Hughes, A., Susan, P., & Stephens, D. I. (2004). The status of ethics in technology education. In R. B. Hill (Ed.), Ethics for citizenship in a technological world (pp. 163–186). Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . University of Minnesota Press.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a new instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 , 644–659.

Riley, D. (2008). Engineering and social justice. Synthesis lectures on engineers, technology and society . Morgan and Claypool Publishers.

Riley, D. (2013). Hidden in plain view: Feminists doing engineering ethics, engineers doing feminist ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 , 189–206.

Riley, D. (2021). What we assess for accreditation and what we teach need not be completely aligned. SEFI SIG Ethics February newsletter . [Retrieved online 28 Feb 2021] https://www.sefi.be/2021/02/24/what-we-assess-for-accreditation-and-what-we-teach-need-not-be-completely-aligned/

Riley, D., Ellis, G., & Howe, S. (2004). To move people from apathy’: A multiperspective approach to ethics across the engineering curriculum. In Proceedings of American society for engineering education annual conference.

Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., & Catalano, G. D. (2009). Feminisms in engineering education. NWSA, 21 (2), 21–40.

Rodriguez, S. L., Lu, C., & Bartlett, M. (2018). Engineering identity development: A review of the higher education literature. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6 (3), 254–265.

Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (1), 103–115.

Romkey, L. (2015). Engineering, society, and the environment in the teaching goals and practices of engineering instructors. In 2015 ASEE annual conference and exposition.

Rottmann, C., & Reeve, D. (2020). Equity as rebar: Bridging the micro/macro divide in engineering ethics education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technical Education, 20 , 146–165.

Rover, D. T. (2008). Engineering identity. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (3), 389–392.

Rulifson, G., & Bielefeldt, A. (2018). Evolution of students’ varied conceptualizations about socially responsible engineering: A four-year longitudinal study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 (3), 1–36.

Sax, L. J. (2000). Citizenship development and the American college student. In T. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civic responsibility and higher education. Oryx Press.

Scott, D. (2005). Critical realism and empirical research methods in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 (4), 633–646.

Scott, D. (2010). Education, epistemology and critical realism . Routledge.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Schiff, D. S., Logevall, E., Borenstein, J., Newstetter, W., Potts, C., & Zegura, E. (2021). Linking personal and professional social responsibility development to microethics and macroethics: Observations from early undergraduate education. Journal of Engineering Education, 110 , 70–91.

Schmidt, J. A. (2014). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20 (4), 985–1010.

Schneider, J., Leydens, L., & Lucena, J. (2008). Where is ‘Community’? Engineering education and sustainable community development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33 (3), 307–319.

Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 86 , 79–105.

Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field . Jossey-Bass.

Sindelar, M., Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Miller, R., Mitcham, C., Olds, B., Pinkus, R., & Wolfe, H. (2003). Assessing engineering students’ abilities to resolve ethical dilemmas. In Frontiers in education conference .

Sinha, S. K., Thomas, R., & Kulka, J. R. (2007). Integrating ethics into the engineered construction curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133 , 291–299.

Skinner, I., MacGill, I., & Outhred, H. (2007). Some lessons from a decade of teaching ethics to undergraduate engineering students. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 9 (9), 133–144.

Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution . Cambridge University Press.

Sonnert, G. (2007). Criteria for good engineering and their importance for pedagogic innovations. In R. Spalter-Roth, N. Fortenberry, & B. Lovitts (Eds.), The acceptance and diffusion of innovation: A cross-disciplinary approach to instructional and curricular change in Engineering. American Sociological Association.

Spalter-Roth, R., & Meiksins, P. F. (2008). Advancing educational reform: Lessons from a collaborative workshop among engineering educators and sociologist. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Integrating the sciences and society: Challenges, practices and potentials. Emerald, JAI.

Stappenbelt, B. (2013). Ethics in engineering: Student perceptions and their professional identity development. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 3 (1), 3–10.

Stephan, K. D. (1999). Survey of ethics related instruction in US Engineering programmes. Journal of Engineering Technology, 88 (4), 459–464.

Sterling, S. (2004). Higher education, sustainability and the role of systematic learning. In P. B. Corcoran & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability (pp. 49–70). Springer.

Stevens, R., Amos, D. L., Jocuns, A., & Garrison, L. (2007). Engineering as lifestyle and a meritocracy of difficulty: Two pervasive beliefs among engineering students and their possible effects. In Proceedings of the 2007 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition .

Stonyer, H. (1998). Present action—Present reflection: The influence of the philosophy of engineering education. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian conference on engineering education (pp. 289–293).

Stonyer, H. (2002). Making engineering students—Making women: The discursive context of engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18 (4), 392–399.

Storer, N. W. (1967). Hard sciences and soft—Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 55 , 75–84.

Sucala, I. V. (2019). Mission (im)possible? Teaching social sciences to engineering students. In SEFI annual conference .

Sunderland, M. E. (2019). Using student engagement to relocate ethics to the core of the engineering curriculum. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 , 1771–1788.

Sunderland, M. E., Ahn, J., Carson, C. & Kastenberg, W. E. (2013). Making ethics explicit: Relocating ethics to the core of engineering education. In 2013 American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition.

Suskie, L. (2015). Five dimensions of quality: A common sense guide to accreditation and accountability . John Wiley & Sons.

Taebi, B., & Kastenberg, W. E. (2019). Teaching engineering ethics to PhD students: A Berkeley–Delft initiative. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 , 1763–1770.

Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., Harkrider, L., Devenport, L. D., Bagdasarov, Z., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Case-based knowledge and ethics education: Improving learning and transfer through emotionally rich cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (1), 265–286.

Toma, J. D. (1997). Alternative inquiry paradigms , faculty cultures and the definition of academic lives. Journal of Higher Education, 68 , 679–705.

Tombs, S. (2007). A political economy of corporate killing. Criminal Justice Matters, 70 (1), 29–30.

Tonso, K. L. (1996). The impact of cultural norms on women. Journal of Engineering Education, 85 (3), 217–225.

Tonso, K. L. (1999). Engineering gender-gendering engineering: A cultural model for belonging. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5 (4), 365–405.

Tormey, R. (2005). The cost of values: Questioning the application of the term in development education. Development Education Journal, 11 , 9–11.

Tormey, R., LeDuc, I., Isaac, S., Hardebolle, C., & Cardia, I. V. (2015). The formal and hidden curricula of ethics in engineering education. In 43rd annual SEFI conference .

Trevelyan, J. (2010). Reconstructing engineering from practice. Engineering Studies, 2 (3), 175–195.

Trevelyan, J. (2014). The making of an expert engineer . CRC Press.

Trowler, P. (2005). A sociology of teaching, learning and enhancement: Improving practices in higher education. Revista De Sociologia, 76 , 13–32.

Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practices . Palgrave.

Trowler, P., Hopkinson, P., & Comerford Boyes, L. (2013). Institutional change towards a sustainability agenda: How far can theory assist? Tertiary Education and Management, 19 (4), 1–13.

Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective. Springer.

Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting . Oxford University Press.

Vanderburg, W. H. (1989). Professionals and social responsibility: Some patterns. Journal of Business Ethics, 8 (2/3), 209–215.

van Gorp, A. (2005). Ethical issues in engineering design, safety and sustainability. In Simon Stevin series in the philosophy of technology 2 (Doctoral thesis). Delft & Eindhoven.

van den Hoven, J. (2019). Ethics and the UN sustainable development goals: The case for comprehensive engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 , 1789–1797.

Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology and engineering: An introduction . Wiley-Blackwell.

van de Poel, I. R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Editorial: Ethics and engineering design. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31 (3), 223–236.

Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31 (3), 361–380.

Verbeek, P. P. (2008). Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light, & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (pp. 91–103). Springer.

Vesilind, P. A. (1991). Views on teaching ethics and morals. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 117 (2), 88–95.

Volkwein, J. F., Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Strauss, L. C., & Sukhbaatar, J. (2004). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20 (3), 318–328.

Voss, G. (2013). Gaming, texting, learning? Teaching engineering ethics through students’ lived experiences with technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 , 1375–1393.

Walczak, K., Finelli, C. J., Holsapple, M. A., Sutkus, J. A., Harding, T. S., & Carpenter, D. D. (2010). Institutional obstacles to integrating ethics into the curriculum and strategies for overcoming them. In Proceedings of the 2010 ASEE annual conference and exposition .

Weil, V. (1984). The rise of engineering ethics. Technology in Society, 6 (4), 341–345.

Whitbeck, C. (1995). Teaching ethics to scientists and engineers: Moral agents and moral problems. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1 , 299–308.

Whitbeck, C. (1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research . Cambridge University Press.

Wicklein, R. C. (1997). Curriculum focus for technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 8 (2), 73–80.

Wilson, S. M., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2021). Methodological guidance paper: The craft of conducting a qualitative review. Review of Educational Research .

Wynne, R. (2014). Higher education civic engagement: Project or orientation. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6 (1), 1471–1474.

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 Education, 25 (1), 138–143.

Yadav, A., Lundeberg, M., DeSchryver, M., Dirkin, K., Schiller, N. A., Maier, K., & Herreid, C. F. (2007). Teaching science with case studies: A national survey of faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using case studies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37 (1), 34–38.

Zandvoort, H., Van Hasselt, G. J., & Bonnet, J. A. (2008). A joint venture model of teaching required courses in ‘ethics and engineering’ to engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33 (2), 187–195.

Zhu, Q., Zoltowski, C. B., Feister, M. K., Buzzanell, P. M., Oakes, W. C., & Mead, A. D. (2014). The development of an instrument for assessing individual ethical decisionmaking in project-based design teams: Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. In ASEE annual conference .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editor and the seven reviewers of the manuscript. Their generosity, time and constructive feedback were crucial for strengthening the manuscript and bringing it to its current form. This publication is based on the first author’s doctoral research study, and she extends her gratitude to her former institution and her colleagues.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Philosophy and Ethics, Department IE&IS, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Diana Adela Martin

College of Engineering and Built Environment, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Diana Adela Martin & Eddie Conlon

Academic Affairs – City Campus, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Adela Martin .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Martin, D.A., Conlon, E. & Bowe, B. A Multi-level Review of Engineering Ethics Education: Towards a Socio-technical Orientation of Engineering Education for Ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 27 , 60 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00333-6

Download citation

Received : 08 October 2019

Accepted : 30 July 2021

Published : 24 August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00333-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Literature review
• Engineering ethics education
• Implementation of ethics
• Ethics instruction
• Learning goals
• Curricular alignment
• Engineering culture
• Engineering education reform
• Socio-technical engineering education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Engineering Ethics Cases
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• More Focus Areas
• Engineering Ethics

The following series of engineering ethics cases were created by interviewing numerous engineers from Silicon Valley and beyond.

The cases have been written, anonymized, and honed to highlight the ethical content from each interview. While these cases are meant for engineering students and professionals for their professional development, nearly all of the cases occur in the context of business, and therefore are also relevant for those seeking business ethics cases.

These cases are suitable as homework and/or for classroom discussion. The goal of this project is to acquaint engineering students and professionals with the variety of ethical experiences of engineering as practiced “in the field.” By becoming familiar with problems faced by other engineers we hope to thereby prepare those reading these cases if they too encounter difficult ethical dilemmas in their work.

Cases range from the mundane to the deadly. While we do not reveal how each particular case turned out, in general they turned out well – the people involved made the right decisions. But this is not to say that all of these right decisions came without personal cost. A few of the engineers did face negative repercussions and a very few even needed to find new employment. However, overall the interviewees were satisfied with how events turned out, even if they faced negative repercussions for their good decisions. They understood that doing the right thing is good in itself, regardless of the personal consequences they may have faced.

The engineering ethics cases can be sorted into the following categories:

• Academic Ethics
• Bioengineering
• Business Ethics
• Civil Engineering
• Computer/Software Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• International
• Mechanical Engineering
• Science/Research Ethics

A quality assurance engineer must decide whether or not to ship products that might be defective.

An intern at a power electronics startup faces unkind comments from a fellow engineer. She suspects that her colleague is prejudice toward female engineers.

A chemical engineering professor discovers that a colleague has taken credit for his research.

A bioengineering researcher discovers an error in protocol and feels pressured not to report it to her supervisor.

A graduate student suspects her research adviser has earned tenure under false pretenses.

A computer startup company risks violating copyright laws if it reuses a code that is the intellectual property of another company.

A recently promoted manager at an industrial engineering company discovers that factory workers are asked to work more than eight hours a day without getting paid overtime.

Full transparency might prevent a project leader from closing a deal with a valuable client. Should he still clarify the situation to his client?

A manager at a consumer electronics company struggles over whether or not he should disclose confidential information to a valued customer.

A medical researcher is asked to trim data before presenting it to the scientific advisory board.

A technical sales engineer feels pressure to falsify a sales report in order to prevent the delay of her company's IPO.

When a computer filled with personal data gets stolen, a data company must decide how to manage the breach in security.

Employees of a computer hardware company are angered by a manager that demonstrates favoritism.

A project engineer believes his company is providing the wrong form of technology to an in-need community in East Africa.

A computer engineer is asked to divulge private medical data for marketing purposes.

Environmental engineers face pressure to come up with data that favors their employers.

In this ethics case, a woman is displeased with her work role at a computer hardware company.

A systems engineering company employee quits after getting pressured to falsify product testing paperwork.

A manager at a nonprofit mechanical engineering firm questions how responsible her company should be for ongoing maintenance on past projects.

An engineer for an environmental consulting firm must decide whether or not he should encourage his client to go with a more environmentally sustainable construction plan.

A genetic engineer feels a responsibility to educate colleagues on the truth behind stem cell research.

An engineering manager gets pressured to bribe a foreign official in order to secure a business venture in East Africa.

An African-American electronics design lead wonders whether his colleague's contentious behavior is motivated by racism.

A medical company asks blood sample suppliers to sign an ethically questionable consent form.

A quality assurance tester gets pressured to falsify data about a new product from a major cell phone company.

Should a production engineer prioritize a customer's desires over safety?

A female intern at a construction company faces disrespectful treatment because of her gender.

A new hire at an electronics startup struggles to decide between telling the truth and maximizing the company's profit.

A fellow for a global services program faces an ethical dilemma when a colleague asks him to falsify receipts.

A researcher of regenerative medicine meets a man who is eager sign up for potentially dangerous human testing.

A bioengineer's research leads to the discovery that a patient might have prostate cancer.

Two support engineers at a South Bay audio visual electronics startup question the fairness of a supervisor's decision.

An employee overseeing data analysis on a clinical drug trial has concerns about the safety of a client's drug.

The engineering ethics cases in this series were written by Santa Clara University School of Engineering students Clare Bartlett, Nabilah Deen, and Jocelyn Tan, who worked as Hackworth Engineering Ethics Fellows at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics over the course of the 2014-2015 academic year. In order to write these cases, the fellows interviewed numerous engineers and collected nearly 40 engineering ethics cases from Silicon Valley and beyond.  The Hackworth Fellowships are made possible by a generous gift from Joan and the late Michael Hackworth.

• Engineering Business

Engineering Ethics

Engineering Ethics is the set of rules and guidelines that engineers adhere to as a moral obligation to their profession and to the world. Engineering is a professional career that impact lives. When ethics is not followed, disaster often occurs; these disasters not only include huge monetary costs and environmental impacts, but also often result in the loss of human life. Engineering Ethics applies to every engineer and is very important.

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) decides the overall standards and codes of ethics for all the engineering professions. The Preamble of the NSPE Code of Conduct for Engineers (2007) states:

“ Engineers shall at all times recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the safety, health, property, and welfare of the public. If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public are endangered, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. ”

This means that engineers should always be aware that their safety and the safety of those around them comes before anything, including any engineering projects they take on, no matter how wonderful the end product might be. That being said, engineering standards change from one professional engineering society to the next because of the work that different type of engineers do. For example, the work that a civil engineer does (e.g. construct a bridge) will be different from the work that a biomedical engineer does (e.g. making an artificial heart). However, no matter what type of engineer you are, Engineering Ethics is important because if you do not follow it you can be putting yours and someone else’s life in danger.

Electrical Engineering Ethics

Electrical Engineering is a type of engineering profession that deals with the creation of better electronics. Since our society is heading towards an era of technology, where all members of society will be affected, it is especially important for electrical engineers to follow a code of engineering ethics. For electrical engineers, an important set of guidelines is the Electrical Engineering Code of Ethics , published by IEEE (n.d.), the major professional association for engineers working in the fields of electrical, electronics, computer engineering, and communications.  The Code emphasizes above all else honesty and avoidance of endangerment to the public or the environment.

Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics

Every engineer will find himself in a conflicting position. For example, consider the case of a biomedical engineer engineering a potentially working artificial kidney. When he was on the clinical trial phase, he needs to decide whether to proceed with testing on humans. If he proceeds, and the device fails, a human test subject could die. If he succeeds, he will be saving the lives of the thousands of people who need kidneys in the future. Although he is in a touch predicament, he can make his decision better by using the steps of problem solving in engineering ethics to help him make the best decision. The steps of Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics are (Johanssen, 2009):

• State the Problem : Clearly define what the ethical engineering problem is.
• Get the Facts : Obtain all relevant facts to the matter (i.e. the different moral viewpoints) and then analyze them all.
• Identify and Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints : Analyze the pro and cons of different moral viewpoints and pick the best course of action.
• Come up with a Course of Action : Pick the best course of actions, and answer all un-answered questions.
• Qualify the course of Action : Back up the course of action with facts or statistics.

In the scenario above, the biomedical engineer can first state the problem, which is whether or not to proceed with testing knowing that he could save the lives of thousands, or else kill the test subjects. He can then gather all the facts about the test subjects, the device he made, and the different moral viewpoints from others. He can then make a pro and con list of all the moral viewpoints. From this he must pick the best action to take and be prepared to defend it.

Reasons why Engineers Stray from the Code of Ethics

There are two main reasons why Engineers often stray from their code of ethics. The first reason is because they are overconfident in their work, which in turn causes them to neglect things that might be wrong with it. They may overlook small mistakes or remain stubborn about their beliefs because they think highly of their education level. However, in engineering, these small mistakes might be the very thing that causes a disaster (e.g. the Challenger and O-rings). Another reason why Engineers stray is that they are impatient. They are excited about their work and want to see it in action in the world, so they send it out before it’s ready. Sometimes it is not even their fault, but the fault of their authority figures (i.e. boss or managers). Their authority figures can be impatient and give them a short deadline to work on the project. Impatience does not allow room for iterations of the processes involved in design, testing, and implementing a product or project. Iterations are often needed to increase confidence that the product will work and that, more importantly, it will work safely.

Thus, it is recommended that engineers check their work at least twice and even have others check their work no matter how little time they have left or no matter how excited they are about submitting the project. If they know they have a short deadline, they can either manage their time better to have room for several revisions or ask their boss for an extension. Engineers should also try to be open to other ideas and admit that they could be wrong.

Applications of Engineering Ethics

Engineering ethics in college/education.

The main engineering ethics problem that college students are face with is academic integrity. Academic integrity can show itself in the form of cheating by copying someone’s work, intentional cheating, plagiarism, and/or self-plagiarism.

However, professional ethics is something that can be learned even when it conflicts with personal ethics, as for example, a situation where you are personally okay with building a product that can harm the environment, yet save lives. You can learn professional ethics and realize that something that is harmful to the environment is not okay. Ethics codes can even help you see the bigger picture. For example, in the previous scenario, these codes can help you re-evaluate your ethics and realize that something that is harmful to the environment will eventually be harmful to the people around you and yourself.

Thus, there are many ethics classes in universities across the world. Some universities even require engineers to take classes on ethics. For example, Cohen et al. (2005) developed a model called the Air Model (AIR) SM to help students reflect and develop their personal code of ethics. AIR stands for Awareness (of ethical issues), Investigation (of those issues), and Responding (to those issues).

Engineering Ethics in the Professional World

In the professional world, ethical engineering problems come up in many cases. One of these includes the case of a professional using someone else’s work that is published in the widespread market of publication. Another is the case of a professional using someone else’s work that is not published yet and stealing their idea. Engineers who have good engineering ethics often have a good sense of the value of life. They don’t hesitate to admit that they made a mistake because they know that the cost of not owning up to your mistakes can have disastrous consequences. It might even cost a human life.

Engineering Ethics in Companies

Not only do individual engineers have to be conscious of engineering ethics, but also companies. Companies have to be aware of their Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility is a company’s responsibility to give back to the community that they profit from and to behave ethically so that both they and their community can benefit. Environmental Responsibility is a business’s initiative to leave the environment (where it is taking its resources from) the same, if not better, that it is found it.

Engineering Ethics applied to Senior Design Project

Thus, as seniors in college, we are making the transition from an academic environment to a professional environment. The further we are in our career path, the more important ethics is, especially engineering ethics. Thus, the soon we start defining our ethics the better, beginning with our final project in college and the first design project of our lives: our Senior Design Project .

Cited References

• Bowen, W. Richard. (2009). Engineering Ethics . United Kingdom: Springer, 2009. OCLC WorldCat Permalink: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/262720358
• Cohen, P., McDaniels, M., & Qualters, D. M. (2005). Air Model: A Teaching Tool For Cultivating Reflective Ethical Inquiry. College Teaching , 53(3), 120–127. DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.53.3.120-127
• IEEE. (n.d.) IEEE Code of Ethics . Retrieved from http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
• Jonassen, D. H., Shen, D., Marra, R. M.,…Lohani, V. K. (2009). Engaging and Supporting Problem Solving in Engineering Ethics. Journal of Engineering Education , 98(3), 235–254. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01022.x
• Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2005). Ethics in engineering . Boston: McGraw-Hill. OCLC WorldCat Permalink: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54029368
• NSPE. (2007). NSPE Code of Conduct . Retrieved from http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
• Uff, J. (2002). Engineering Ethics: Do Engineers Owe Duties to the Public? Royal Academy of Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/lectures/engineering_ethics_lecture.pdf

Additional Resources

• Barakat, N. (2011). Engineering ethics: A critical dimension of the profession. In 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 159–164). Presented at the 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). DOI: 10.1109/EDUCON.2011.5773130
• Davis, M. (1991). Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession. Philosophy & Public Affairs , 20(2), 150-167. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265293 .
• Floyd, R. E. (2012). Ethics for Engineers? IEEE Potentials , 31(2), 4–5. DOI: 10.1109/MPOT.2011.2177759
• Maxey, M. N. (1993). Engineering in search of ethics. IEEE Circuits and Devices Magazine , 9(1), 30–34. DOI: 10.1109/101.180741
• Rogers, D. A., & Ribeiro, P. F. (2004). Work in progress – ethics integrated into engineering courses. In Frontiers in Education , 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual (pp. S1E/22–S1E/23 Vol. 3). Presented at the Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual. DOI: 10.1109/FIE.2004.1408696
• Stephan, K. D. (2001). Is engineering ethics optional? IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , 20(4), 6–12. DOI: 10.1109/44.974502
• Articles > 2. Management > Engineering Ethics

Search the Handbook:

Handbook overview.

• Introduction and Acknowledgements
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2022-23 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2021-22 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2020-21 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2019-20 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2018-19 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2017-18 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2016-17 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2015-16 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2014-15 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2013-14 Academic Year
• Senior Capstone Projects Summary for the 2012-13 Academic Year
• 1. Design Process
• 2. Management
• 3. Technologies
• 4. Communications And Life Skills
• 5. Tech Notes
• Electrical and Computer Engineering Design Handbook

Disclaimer | Non-Discrimination | Privacy | Terms for Creating and Maintaining Sites

Engineering Ethics in the Organizations Essay

Introduction, thesis statement.

Engineering is referred to as a profession because people who practice activities related to engineering have specialized knowledge and skills. However, engineers do not have the full responsibilities to control the engineering activities since they do not need to have a license to do this. As a result of this, the need for engineering activities to be regulated by certain ethical standards is a major issue of concern in modern days. However, only licensed engineers have a code of ethics that governs them, in this case, the codes of ethics are compulsory. There are other groups of engineers whose activities are controlled by their employees and whose autonomy in this case is limited, such engineers are those who work for large organizations (Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, p. 6).

The engineering codes define the major goal of an engineer as being responsible for the safety, health, and general welfare of the public. As professionals, engineers have the moral obligation to do what is necessary to ensure that this profession takes into account the required standards of health and safety for the public. Engineers who fail to consider the health, safety, and welfare of the public in their work are answerable to their employers who give them the tasks to undertake such projects. This paper will focus on the ethical issues that engineers should focus on in the course of their duty. The paper will use three cases to illustrate the ethical considerations by engineers and for each example, the best decision or action will be mentioned.

Case 5: Cartex

This case is Ben who was assigned the task of improving an ultrasonic range finding device by his employer, Cartex. During the task, Ben realized that he could modify the equipment so as it could apply to military submarines. Ben further found out that if this idea would work, it would have big returns to his company in terms of the amount of money earned. However, Ben’s mind did not wish to make any contribution to a task that would develop military hardware. As a result of this position, Ben did not develop this idea on his own and neither told any of the employees of the company. According to the contract, Ben signed with his employer, any intervention that he produced while working was the product of the company. This contract was not well accepted by Ben due to some reasons; the idea he had was not developed and because his employer knew that he had anti-military sentiments. According to Ben, the ethical issue of concern was whether it was worth concealing his idea from his employers (Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, pp. 237-238).

Ben’s idea in this case was wise. This is because if he agreed to modify the ultrasonic device using the idea he had developed, it would have resulted in controversies since it would appear as military equipment. Such equipment is not supposed to be in the hands of an ordinary person for safety reasons and therefore Ben used engineering ethics so as not to implement the idea.

Case 14: Halting a dangerous project

The case is about a contract involving the production of weapons that were manufactured by companies that did business with Northern Atlantic Trade Organizations agencies of governments. These weaponry devices looked like advanced technology land mines which were controlled electronically, this ensured that they could be easily triggered using capacitor circuits so as they could go off during particular specified times instead of many years later when children would be playing in the open minefields. Alpha electronics was awarded this contract, and its leader was Sam. However, all the required specifications were provided by NATO and therefore Alpha electronics was in a position to undertake the contract without any problem. The project leader was interested in the issue that any new end-user of the devices would tamper with the trigger and result in likely danger which would result in the land mines becoming dangerous than any other device in the current market. The safety of a weaponry device is a major ethical consideration that should be taken into account to minimize the likely impacts which can lead to risks on human life (Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins, p. 248).

On completion of the NATO contract, the Alpha Electronics project leader realized that the company had another contract with a firm in Eastern Europe. The Eastern European firm was considered as having a reputation of using stolen patented weapon devices and also collaborating with terrorist organizations. As a result of these deals, the Alpha Electronics project leader decided to halt further production of these weaponry devices. This halting resulted from a consultation with the United States state departments of munitions control and other colleagues (Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins, p. 248).

Based on engineering ethics and local corporate citizenship, Alpha electronics were required to have a consideration of the expected impact on the local communities. No guarantee was provided by the Eastern European Company showing who the company would sell the devices to or what were the end uses of the devices (Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, p. 249).

The project leader of the Alpha electronics decided without fear of the reactions that would result from the directors and fellow workers. However, the project leader was not punished for the decision of halting the production of the weaponry device since he did the right action for the company and the public at large.

Case 25: Oil spill

This case is about Peter who was working with a local affiliate of the Bigness Oil Company. The company dealt with receiving petroleum products and later blending them for sale to private businesses. These petroleum chemicals were received via pipeline and oil tankers. The relationship between Peter and the local facility’s manager had grown strong over the years. Peter worked as a consulting engineer and according to him, the local oil facility adhered to all the environmental regulations set by the environmental governance agency. The positive recommendation made on the firm by Peter earned him respect from the manager and he could therefore be rewarded for being the best consulting engineer. During a discussion between the firm manager and Peter, the manager told Peter that there was one time in the 1950s that the firm lost close to ten thousand gallons of petroleum oil. According to Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins (p. 265) “a running pressure test indicated that one of the pipelines had corroded and therefore the chemical had been leaking to the ground”. After sampling wells, it was found out that the chemical was occupying a vertical plume and was gradually leaking into an adjacent aquifer. The firm manager found out that there wasn’t ground and surface water pollution of the firm’s location and as a result of this he decided not to react. The firm manager believed that the chemical still existed in the vertical plume under the firm’s site even though well samplings indicated that the concentration of the chemical at a height of 400 feet of the underground water was close to zero (Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, pp. 265-6).

This case resulted in Peter being faced with the task of reporting this case to the government. The law required Peter as a consulting engineer to report such cases related to oil spills leading to pollution. This was a difficult scenario for him because the current case occurred many years ago and did not have feasible effects as well as the case was not reported to the media. However, the professional codes of ethics governing Peter’s profession provided the need for him to take urgent measures to report this case despite the relationship he had with the manager. This is because the effects of the oil spills would persist and they would one-time result to further complicated impacts. In addition, the manager of the local oil firm made a serious mistake for ignoring to take action on what had occurred to the company.

This paper has illustrated what are engineering ethics and their relevance. The examples of cases used above clearly show how engineers should address some of the issues that encounter in the course of their work. As mentioned above, engineers have the responsibility of ensuring public health, safety, and the general public welfare and therefore this profession should always take such ethical considerations into account.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 18). Engineering Ethics in the Organizations. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-in-the-organizations/

"Engineering Ethics in the Organizations." IvyPanda , 18 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-in-the-organizations/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Engineering Ethics in the Organizations'. 18 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Engineering Ethics in the Organizations." March 18, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-in-the-organizations/.

1. IvyPanda . "Engineering Ethics in the Organizations." March 18, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-in-the-organizations/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Engineering Ethics in the Organizations." March 18, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/engineering-ethics-in-the-organizations/.

• Redundancy, Its Reasons and Preventive Measures
• Containing Iranian Nuclear Aspirations
• Civic Engagement in the Stop the Bleed Campaign
• Ben Ali: Tunisian Revolution
• “The Facebook Sonnet” by Alexie: Theme, Form, and Literary Devices
• Employee handbook: inspections and spills
• Ben and Jerry Company's SWOT Analysis
• The Dayton Peace Accords
• Corporate Social Responsibility at Ben & Jerry’s
• Water Pollution: OIL Spills Aspects
• New Balance Focus to Develop an Integrated Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy
• The Vodafone-Mannesmann: Case Study
• Gap Inc.: Current and New Strategic Position
• Charles River Laboratories and Alpes Company: Joint Venture Proposal
• Tom Monaghan - Who Founded Domino’s Pizza

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal

Capstone Project

• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Engineering Ethics, Case Study Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1778

Hire a Writer for Custom Case Study

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

The case study currently covered has several ethical and legal issues featured. Following the events leading to the industrial incident, decisions were made based on business interest and priorities such as cost saving. Further, tests were indicating that an incident was likely to occur, however, the management focused on having the plant up and running, because of the competition moving in the market with a new product unexpectedly. It can be questioned whether or not Fred, the engineer had enough competence and authority to make suggestions, and even if he did propose alternate designs to make the plant safer, it is not likely that his supervisor would have approved them.

The below paper is designed to reveal the main business and ethical decisions that could have led to the accident. As the engineer followed guidelines and worked as a contractor, he was not solely responsible for the incident. However, he gave his name to the manual and plan, therefore, as the creator, he is responsible for taking the risks. Further, environmental consequences of the actions of the company also had to be considered. The incident at the company did not only claim the life of a worker, but also might have resulted in an environmental catastrophe.

Ethical Considerations

The company chooses to hire Fred as an engineer once they get the project of building an automated production plant to manufacture a new formula of paint stripper approved. He has previously worked for the competition planning a similar plant. They choose him because of his expertise, and while he has no legal confidentiality bound, they are looking to build upon his knowledge he acquired at the previous company. The time available is limited, while initially it looks like the firm has a good sized budget to compensate the lack of time. They have to take another product off the shelf because it created health hazard for users. However, as similar plants take over a year to be planned and built, they choose to go ahead with the tight deadline. The leadership should have considered that testing and planning would be compromised because of the time limit.

Once the project is started, the company has to take a project budget cut, and this undermines the original plan. The engineer needs to compromise on the quality of the pipe connectors, which, in the end, causes the incident and the death of a worker. Decisions regarding parts, computing dashboards and control equipment are made based on cost, except for one: the sales representative of the United States for the control equipment made in Switzerland is the cousin of the CEO, therefore, even though the price is higher, they initially order that particular part. This puts a pressure on the rest of the budget and results in choosing a Mexican supplier for the pipes. Because of the location, Fred is unable to inspect the parts in person and ensure that they are manufactured according to U.S. standards.

As Fred’s wife is an “environmentalist”, he studies the environmental impact of draining waste water. He tells Chuck, the CEO about the problem who addresses it and makes adjustments, even if it costs more money.

The final ethical issue arises when during putting test batches through the system, the pipes’ joints leak. The chemical that leaks is toxic, and it is likely that it is a result of a change made to the compound, formula, due to the competitor’s new product’s entry to the market. While the original design was suitable for the original compound and pressure/temperature, it is no longer able to support the new process. The management ignores the leakage and starts the manufacturing process, endangering lives. The supervisor (most likely responsible for managing the project) decides that the pipe works are good for a year, and the company would “make it a maintenance issue”.

Legal Requirements

While the engineer the company hires has worked for the competition on a similar project, the legal department checks whether or not he is bound by a confidentiality agreement. The experts find that as he worked on a freelance basis, he is not obliged to keep trade secrets. Even though he does not break the law, his actions are legally questionable. It is not detailed in the case study video whether or not, and to what extent he uses his knowledge about the planning process.

Fred carefully studies the regulations of environmental protection, the engineer find that they are not strong enough. Even though the company does meet the industry requirements of treating waste water before releasing it to the ground, he has concerns. He does talk about this with Chuck, which makes his immediate supervisor angry. Finally, new guidelines are introduced and the protection of people who take their water from the nearby pond is provided.

As the accident happens and a person dies at the plant, it is important to consider the legal responsibility of the company and the engineer. The case study features snippets of his interview, and the company is investigated for negligence. Indeed, the worker’s family is entitled to compensation. On the other hand, other people affected by the issue, such as those whose environment the accident impacted can also sue the company. It is likely that the company will be legally held responsible.

Protecting Health, Safety and Welfare Of The Public

While initially, the company’s design is created to decrease the health impact and risks of using paint strippers, the design is soon changed. This is due to the new product that the competition puts on the market and the fact that it is more effective than the company’s design. A lower efficiency product would not sell as well as the other company’s. Further, the company also changes the process and increases pressure, temperature, which results in the original parts being unsuitable or unreliable. Without changing the parts, the company fails to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, as well as its workers. Public liability regulations need to be considered when designing a project.

Further, there is no indication whether or not the company carried out enough environmental studies, risk assessment projects, and whether they were followed up as the plans changed. The company could have identified serious risks associated with changing the plan, compound, suppliers and process before a catastrophe would occur.

The company did not provide an open and healthy environment for the engineer, either. They put pressure on him to complete the project on a reduced budget, within time, and this was not a fair treatment. Further, they were shifting responsibility on Fred when he had to sign up the manual in person, even though he did not make final decisions.

Resolving the Problem

In several instances, the company did not follow an acceptable course of action. There are several causes of impediments to responsible action. The company decided to carry on with lower quality parts and change the compound acting of self-interest. In Fred’s case, there were two different impediments that made him decide to go ahead: fear and self-deception. He did believe that the company would not endanger innocent lives to increase its profits. He was also afraid of telling his supervisor about the issues and his concerns because, following the discussion about environmental impact, he indicated that there was no place for such conversation, especially if it increases costs. Further, he also acted from “unethical acceptance of authority. He understood after being denied the choice to change the plan that his options were limited. His supervisor tells him not to start a fight if he can’t win and he accepts this.

The ignorance of the project management is clearly visible when the supervisor says: this is when the fun begins”, which is clearly not a responsible statement. He also says that it is OK to create a not-perfect plan. It can be corrected over time when the funding is available.

Reviewing the professional ethical guidelines of engineering (Luegenbiehl and Davis), it is evident that engineers have a strong duty to protect the interest of not only the company but workers and the public as well. The fundamental principles of engineering ethics (NSPE c.2), “Engineers will conduct reviews of the safety and reliability of the design, products or systems for which they are responsible before giving their approval to the plans for the design.”. While Fred could claim that his authority was restricted, he can still be help liable for the events as his signature is on the papers and he received compensation for the work. Regarding his previous freelancing project, he can also be held liable for breaching the code of ethics. It clearly states that “Engineers shall treat information coming to them in the course of their assignments as confidential, and shall not use such information as a means of making personal profit if such action is adverse to the interests of their clients, their employers, or the public”(NSPE 4.i)

The company should not only apologize to the family of the worker who died in the incident but ensure that all risks related to the incident are eliminated. The plant is going to be closed down, reducing the profit of the company. This could have been avoided by the company if adequate safety measures were added to the planning, and if risk assessment was carried out on a regular basis. Fred should have been more assertive or quit the job when he was told that he could not inspect the manufacturing plant where the pipes were made. He should have insisted to carry out risk assessment and stop the plant’s operation after the first three trial batches went through and the system leaked. As one of the fundamental canons of NSPE is to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”, Fred clearly did not comply with the regulation. He was aware that the chemical that leaked from the pipes was dangerous, and created a hazard for not only workers, but the public as well.

Based on the findings of the above case study review, the authors would suggest that the company would work together with the original engineer to eliminate problems in the system and carry out a complete thorough risk assessment for the whole plant. This would help the firm correct the mistakes and avoid future incidents. The leadership should also approach the public and the worker’s family to arrange compensation. The reputation of the company has already been damaged, it is possibly time to create a new, more ethical and responsible vision and mission that prioritizes public safety.

Works Cited

Harris, C., Pritchard, M., Rabins, M. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 2008. Print. Cengage Learning.

Luegenbiehl, H., Davis, M. Engineering Codes Of Ethics: Analysis And Applications. Web. <http://ethics.iit.edu/publication/CODE–Exxon%20Module.pdf>

National Society of Professional Engineers. Code of Ethics for Engineers. Web.  <http://www.mtengineers.org/pd/NSPECodeofEthics.pdf>

Stuck with your Case Study?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Macroeconomic Effect, Research Paper Example

Safe Sleep Education, Capstone Project Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Case Study Samples & Examples

R. v. labaye, case study example.

Pages: 3

Words: 821

Employment Law/California Employment Law, Case Study Example

Words: 1770

Travel Sawa Failure to Penetrate Egyptian Inbound Travel Market, Case Study Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2065

Severe Weather, Case Study Example

Pages: 16

Words: 4308

Boeing Company, Case Study Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1808

Property Matters, Case Study Example

Pages: 11

Words: 3048