|
SEFI Annual Conference 2006, Uppsala
SEFI Working
Group Ethics in Engineering Education and SEFI TREE Special Interest
Group D6 Ethical
Issues in Engineering Education.
Report issued
March 2007
H. Zandvoort,
editor.
The workshop
On June 30 2006,
during the SEFI 2006 Annual Conference in Uppsala, Sweden, the SEFI Wg
Ethics in
Engineering Education organised a workshop on social responsibility and
engineering
education. The
goal of the workshop was to identify requirements for the engineering curricula
in
view of the goal
of adequately preparing future engineers for performing their profession in an
ethical and
socially responsible way. The workshop was a SEFI TREE Thematic Network
activity,
designed as an
integral part of the activities of the Special Interest Group D6 on Ethical
Issues in
Engineering
Education of the SEFI TREE Thematic Network. The results of this workshop will
function as
inputs for the endreport of this Special Interest Group. The workshop was
designed
and organised by
H. Zandvoort (TUDelft, chairman of the SEFI Wg Ethics in Engineering
Education and
leader of SEFI TREE Special Interest Group D6) and B. Taebi (TU Delft).
The workshop
consisted of two parts. In the first part, six invited speakers briefly
presented and
defended a
thesis of their own choice regarding what is needed in engineering education in
view
of preparing the
students for social responsibility. The thesis presenters had been invited (but
not
required) to
indicate which of the three aspects Knowledge, Skills and Attitude their thesis
was
particularly
addressing.
In the second
part of the workshop all participants (+/- 20 persons) took on an active role.
Three
subgroups were
formed to discuss the question what is needed in the engineering curricula in
view of
preparing student for social responsibility, along three main lines, i.e.
knowledge, skills
and attitude.
This second part was concluded with brief plenary reports by each subgroup,
supported by
flipover sheets.
This report
The aims of this
report are to preserve the results of the workshop, for dissemination to the
workshop’s
participants and other interested persons, and as an input for the endreport of
the
SEFI TREE SIG
D6.
Part I of this
report provides written accounts by the thesis presenters of five of the six
theses that
were originally
presented.
In part II,
written accounts can be found of the discussions in two of the three subgroups
mentioned above.
These written accounts were prepared by Behnam Taebi and Henk Zandvoort
on the basis of
the flipovers that supported the plenary presentations by the subgroups in which
they had
participated. For the third subgroup (the one on “knowledge”) only the text on
the flipover
itself is
available.
The report ends
with a brief section with personal data on the thesis presenters and the report
editor.
Part 1. Theses about requirements for the engineering curricula in view of
preparing students for social responsibility
Thesis of Eddie Conlon re “knowledge”
Thesis
Engineers need
to understand the context in which engineering practice takes place and the
importance of
engineers seeking to shape that context so that a sustainable engineering
practice
is possible.
This involves understanding the wider social issues inherent in the design,
choice,
adoption and use
of technology and the procedures for collective decision making including the
role of law.
Engineers need to understand how interests are generated and advanced to shape
public policy.
This requires an understanding of power structures deriving from the study of
sociology.
Argument
“Men make their
own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under
circumstances of
their own choosing, but under circumstances existing already, given and
transmitted from
the past” (Marx).
Sociology is
concerned with the relationship between social structures and human action
(agency). It has
focused on the manner in which social structures both constrain and facilitate
agency.
Engineering ethics is concerned with the values of engineers. A set of values
are posited
which make for
an ethical engineering practice. The focus is on the ethical behaviour of the
individual
engineer (agency). But in reality while engineers may be committed to
ethical practices
it is not always
possible to behave ethically. There are some questions which cannot be
effectively
addressed by
considering the spontaneous individual action of engineers alone.1
While my
emphasis is on the context of the engineers work there is a requirement for
civil
courage2 based
on a commitment to securing a sustainable and just world. Individual action can
make a
difference: “By the fact of his (sic) living he contributes …to the shaping of
his society and
to the course of
its history, even as he is made by society and by its historical push and
shove”3.
While teaching
ethical principles to engineers is important it must be seen “as part of a
larger
web of actions
inside many fields” that together make the world more ethical and sustainable.4
Consideration of
the interaction of action and structure leads to a number of areas of enquiry:
· What meaning
does social responsibility have for engineers (ideology)?
· What actions
can they take to ensure they are socially responsible? This involves
questioning the
problems they are asked to solve.
· What
constraints stop them acting in a socially responsible manner?
· How can these
constraints be changed to facilitate social responsibility?
A key constraint
for engineers is that they tend to be employees and work on projects framed by
others and in
organisations owned and controlled by others. In hierarchical organizations
engineers occupy
contradictory positions in that they are both employees and agents of capital,
often holding
formal management positions. Thus they are both part of the collective labour
process and
controllers of labour. They are both constrained and constrainers. Whether they
1 See Fourez, GM
(2001) “Engineers facing ethical debtes” in P. Goujan and B.H. Dubreuil,
Technology and
Ethics, Peeters, Leuven .
2 See Berner, B
(2001) “Handling Ethical Dilemnas in Everyday Engineering Work” in Goujan and
Dubriel op cit
3 Mills, CW
(1970) The Sociological Imagination, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
4 Borson Hansen,
B (2005) “Teaching ethics to Science and Engineering Students”
Report from a
follow up
symposium to the 1999 World Conference on Science, April 15-16, 2005,
Centre for the
Philosophy of
Nature and Science Studies, University of Copenhagen.
design work to
reflect ethical principles or not will be a direct reflection of the ethicality
of the
society of which
it is a part.5
Implementation
There are a
number of ways in which these issues can be handled:
1. Engineering
students could be offered modules in sociology and politics.
2. Given that
many engineers study management these modules should address principles
of
organizational behaviour and organizational processes.
3. Ethics
modules should specifically deal with the obstacles and constraints inhibiting
an
ethical
engineering practice.
Thesis of G.J.
van Hasselt
Thesis
To preserve and
sustain their competitiveness and attractiveness, it is imperative that courses
in
“ethics and
engineering” incorporate non-western philosophies, cultural values and norms.
Argument
Courses in
“ethics & engineering” intend to instil and cultivate an attitude directed at
ethical
considerations
in the professional conduct of scientists, technologists and engineers involved
with
the applied
sciences. The latter are universal: thermodynamics are the same the world over.
The
attitude towards
ethical considerations and debate, as a manifestation of education, however, is
fundamentally
different when comparing e.g. Anglo-Saxon or European with other regions , such
as Asia. A
typical example is the restraint of ( Buddhist) Chinese students when it comes
to
express an
ethical opinion. Even publicly drawing a conclusion from (a mixture of normative
statements and)
technical facts is ‘not done’ in their culture.
Empowerment of
Western students to ‘rise’ above this hindrance in communication and
‘cooperation’
requires a mixture of basic understanding, appreciation and ‘ethically founded’
willingness to
emphasise with and take account of such cultures.
Students who
develop such competence to deal with ethical issues in a truly global manner
have
a competitive
edge; it enhances the reputation of the institute where they were educated.
Conversely, for
non-western students, inclusion of e.g. Buddhist and Confucian essentials,
provides a much
needed ‘stepping stone’ towards the western philosophies etc and thence truly
global thinking.
The ability to
reason and argument on ethical issues in a truly global manner requires basic
understanding of
all major philosophies and religions as they impact and guide the professional
conduct of the
engineers etc.
Summary:
European and (North) American courses on “ethics and engineering” have enjoyed a
‘head start’
relative to the other regions. That head start will, in a few years time, cause
the
proverbial
retardation relative to the Juggernaut of Asian universities, unless the E&E
courses
adequately
encompass all ethical philosophies of global stature.
Thesis of Topi
Heikkerö re attitude
Thesis
Volition aspects
(ethos, attitude, pathos, will, underlying emotion) in technology need to be
addressed in
teaching ethics within engineering curriculum. The first step addressing them is
5 See Legge, K
(2006) “Ethics and Work” in Marek Korczynski et al., Social Theory at Work,
Oxford
University Press.
paying attention
to the procedural character of various processes (research, design, learning,
negotiation,
decision-making, and reconciliation as processes). Another, stronger but more
problematic,
avenue is offered by a discussion on professional virtues of engineers.
Argument
No final
definition of technology exists. Nevertheless, elements of knowledge, action,
artifact, skill,
and system,
undoubtedly, are at work in technology. Since human action is impossible without
desires and
willing that engender an act, a volition aspect inevitably works in
technological
activities as
well (Carl Mitcham: Thinking through Technology, 1994, pp. 154–160). This
aspect,
however, is more
seldom addressed than the others. As ethics literally has to with ethos,
addressing the
volition element in teaching engineering ethics proves necessary. The volition
element here
refers to such things as ethos, attitude, pathos, willing, and emotions
underlying
action. In
classical ethics these were treated under the rubric of virtues (e.g.,
Nichomachean
Ethics ).
Discourse on virtues has gained a new relevance in ethics, especially in
professional
ethics, within
past a couple of decades. Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1984) was
the
contemporary
classic that changed the tide for virtue ethics. Engineering ethics can make use
of
this trend in
defining professional virtues for engineers. These virtues attain their meaning
within
the engineering
practice. As a general moral theory, virtue ethics, however, includes severe
problems in
contemporary culture: it presumes an essentialist anthropology and easily
entails
paternalism. Who
tells what the humanity is to which the virtues should correspond? How
accurately can
“ethically correct” attitudes be taught? Nonetheless, the volition aspect should
receive
attention in teaching ethics to engineers. My second, “softer” suggestion for
achieving this
goal, in
non-metaphysical and non-paternalistic manner, is to emphasize the procedural
character
of various
processes in engineering curriculum. These processes include design as a
process,
research
process, democratic processes, negotiation, decision-making, reconciliation, and
learning. This
can be done in ethics classes but the principle could penetrate the whole
engineering
curriculum as well.
Ethical thinking
behind this suggestion is the tradition of social contract theories. Its liberal
democratic
variants can be supplemented with points of view from communitarism, discourse
ethics, analyses
of recognition (Anerkennung) processes, feminist philosophy, dialogue
theories,
and virtue
ethics. These supplements provide a richer view of human life, a view that takes
the
volition aspect
seriously enough.
Implementation
Practical
teaching ideas following from this suggestion are, for instance, the following:
1.
Structuring
classes so that they in themselves are processes requiring moral deliberation
(team
work, sharing
duties, research projects). 2. Use of drama, role play, and simulation of
processes
central in
engineering praxis with an emphasis on morally tricky situations. 3. Reading
fiction that
describes
relevant processes, discussing it, writing about it. 4. The same as #3 with
movies, both
fiction and
documentary. 5. Writing assignments that require taking another person’s role.
6.
Introspective
writing assignments that inquiry in one’s own convictions and valuations. 7.
Creating
ethics classes
corporeality, volitional life, personal interaction, and dialectic processes in
mind. 8.
Participating
in, and/or researching, real life processes that involve conflicting interests.
Thesis of Behnam
Taebi: Socially responsible engineering
Behnam Taebi,
Delft University of Technology, Department of Philosophy
Thesis
Assuming that
the students have already acquired a background in engineering ethics, I propose
using the
supreme moment of graduation to let the student become acquainted with the
reality of
social issues
related to engineering and technology.
Argument
I assume the
students have already acquired a certain level of knowledge and skills which are
relevant for
dealing with the ethical and social issues. Concepts like responsibility and
risk as well
as philosophical
concepts of ethics (e.g. utilitarianism) are currently included in the
curriculum of
engineering
education at some (West-European) universities, for instance the
Ethics and
Engineering
course, as we provide for Chemical
Engineering and Applied Physics students at the
Delft University
of Technology since ten years6.
Knowledge and
skills constitute the foundation of a house called socially
responsible engineering.
This
construction will, however, remain roofless without possessing the right
attitude. But, how
can we achieve
that?
In ethics
courses, we mostly discuss actual cases, such as the Challenger Launch decision
in
1986. It is on
the one hand very important to discuss these issues in order to explore how such
decisions can
cost human lives but they are, on the other hand, intangible issues for the
student,
as the student
deals with them as virtual issues. Students should also - in addition to
actually
happened cases -
be confronted with issues they can better connect to. A crucial phase in every
academic study
is the graduation project, which spans in the most engineering curricula a
couple
of (weeks or)
months. I propose that a candidate engineer should be asked to discuss the
ethical
and societal
aspects of the design or research she is dealing with in her graduation project.
Let the future
engineers gain awareness about the societal impacts of their work. As technology
is
increasingly
influencing the society around us, an engineer could discuss whether her work
brings
about any change
in the society and to what extent she is responsible for this change. Those are
difficulties an
engineer will encounter later on anyway, but it is recommendable to give an
engineer the
opportunity to deal with them in the very reality of their own graduation work:
the
project they
know better than any other expert and in which they – often for the first
time - tackle a
real existing
problem.
The student is
then obliged to devote a part of graduation thesis to this social chapter
and defend
it in front of
the thesis committee. Defending a thesis is in many engineering faculties a very
serious
business, and the social and ethical chapter should be taken serious as well.
Implementation
I am aware of
the fact that some practical problems must be tackled before this proposal can
be
implemented,
starting with the fact that a philosopher/ethicist or someone else who is
sufficiently
qualified needs
to be involved in the performing and evaluation of each graduation project.
Another problem
is that performing such a study is not expedient to each course, only courses
that are
concluded with a tangible project are eligible for such an additional societal
study.
Yet, I endeavour
to emphasise that the supreme moment of graduation needs to be used as a
finishing touch
of engineering philosophy and ethics courses, in which the student can
freely apply
the
philosophical tools (such as responsibility) she has gained during the
curriculum, in order to
get acquainted
with the social aspects of her work.
Putting the roof
of attitude on a right time and in a right way, there will be a shelter,
under which
an engineer is
better equipped and could act socially responsible.
6 H. Zandvoort,
G.J. van Hasselt, J.A.B.A.F. Bonnet, “Ten years of teaching courses in “ethics
and
engineering” for
Applied Sciences at Delft University of Technology. The story of a successful
teaching model”,
Proceedings of the 34th SEFI Annual Conference. Engineering education and
active students.
Uppsala, Sweden. 28 June – 1 July 2006. Per Andersson, Claudio Borri (Eds).
Published by
Uppsala University, Faculty of Science and Technology, 2006. ISBN 10: 91-631-
8387-0.
Thesis of
Natalie Wagner re attitude and knowledge
Thesis
Students have an
inherent concept of social responsibility before they begin formal education.
This concept
evolves and changes throughout the education program and needs to be nurtured
along the way.
Argument
This will
require a functional definition of what the social responsibility of engineers
is, as well as
some practical
programs to re-enforce the learning process. I think that courses and project
experiences
related to the possible ethical situations that can be encountered should be
offered. A
strong moral
base could be formed with work on humanitarian projects with other disciplines.
I
think that the
inherent responsibility of an engineer should be openly discussed at all
academic
levels, as this
would encourage the students to re-define their level of commitment to the
social
sphere.
Since I am
currently a student and have been working with student directed projects in the
humanitarian
field, I have noticed that my ideas of social responsibility are echoed by some
students and not
by others. I see a lot of students working towards their paycheck after
graduation, not
really for the ideals of what engineering can accomplish. This to me is what
needs
to be addressed
by curricula if the next generation of engineers is to solve the problems of
today.
The format that
I have seen work well is to get a team of students together to work on what at
first
is a simple
engineering problem. Soon moral and ethical implications develop. For example,
there
is a school in
Uganda that has mostly orphans as students. They have not enough water and what
is in storage is
causing illnesses. The outcome required is a suitable supply and storage for
clean
water that will
meet the demands of the school. The ethical aspect is that the team needs to
listen
to the school’s
head master for direction, but the head master is convinced that flush toilets
are
needed equally
as much as the water supply. Where does the authority for the students come
from to tell the
school what is the best solution? And how is the best design implemented when
travel is
hindered by civil unrest? These questions show the level of understanding that
the
engineering
education can be facilitating.
Part II. Results of the subgroup discussions about requirements to
engineering curricula in view of preparing students for social responsibility
Knowledge
The
knowledge-subgroup has reported in a condensed form which has been left
essentially
unaltered here below. The catchwords and phrases that follow can best be
taken as
indicators of the different topics that should receive attention in the
engineering
curricula. They
do not usually indicate what exactly should be taught/learnt about these
topics.
· Factors
affecting the awareness of differences
· Based on
competing values so students can make a choice:
o individual
versus collective
o profit versus
need,
o state versus
market and
o growth versus
sustainability.
· Level of
organization/workplace (employees and managers)
· Different
cultural and global contexts
· Role of
engineering in different contexts
· Whistle
blowing legislation
· Impacts of
decisions on society
· Technical
knowledge to make these decisions safely
Ability to:
· Decide on the
most appropriate technology based on assessment of risk:
o costs versus
benefit,
o to whom and
o tragedy of the
commons.
· Understand
social, business and technical discourses
· What criteria
do we use to evaluate the problem?
o Philosophy of
science
o Argumentation
and debate
o Critical
theory
Skills
An important
learning goal that was considered in this group is the ability to identify the
ethical
issues and
problems that will be encountered during the professional practice. The question
is
which skills are
needed to identify such issues and problems and to deal in a responsible and
appropriate way
with these issues and problems.
The group
emphasized the role of the engineer in the society and her influence on the
public
opinion. An
engineer should be able to analyze and evaluate the broader context in which she
performs her
professional work, as that context has a large influence on the ultimate effects
of
that work. An
engineer should also be aware of the constraints that surround the engineer’s
decisions (e.g.:
economic (cost) considerations versus safety, and more generally, the influence
of the
organization on professional decisions). A critical attitude is needed. That
means that one
needs to learn
both to be self critical and to question the rules or definitions of the
games.
Students need
also to know how to communicate ethical concern within organizations (“nondramatic
ethical
issues”).
Students should
also be prepared for active citizenship, which includes a responsible execution
of
their political
rights and duties. It was remarked that engineers need to possess leadership
skills,
not merely as a
professional but also as a citizen.
The group also
considered the question how the skills identified above should be taught, i.e.
how
the learning
goals should be accomplished. In the opinion of this group, stand alone courses
are
needed as well
as proper attention through the curriculum, in which case studies are considered
to be important.
Attitude
This group
started from the consideration that it is the duty of the engineering schools to
stimulate
and facilitate
the development of social attitudes of their students. Two main instruments were
presented:
service learning and active learning.
Service
learning. The following examples of existing service learning activities were
mentioned:
· Engineers
without borders international:
http://www.ewb-international.org/
· Engineers
without borders USA: http://www.ewb-international.org/
· Engineers for
a sustainable world: http://www.esustainableworld.org/
· Engineers for
a better world: http://www.mines.edu/stu_life/organ/ebw/
· Engineering
project in community service (EPICS):
http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/
Active learning.
It was this group’s opinion that active forms of learning are desirable.
Examples
include case
studies such as the Challenger space shuttle accident and the Chernobyl nuclear
accident, as
well as design projects, which may start already in the first year. Discussions
of major
societal issues
related to technology are advisable; e.g.: nuclear power; Three Gorges dam
(China). Such
issues invariably involve trade-offs between different social values. It was
also
mentioned that a
philosophical framework is needed in order to enable the engineer to identify
and reflect on
such value issues.
Personalia
Eddie Conlon is
the Assistant Head of the Department of Engineering Science and General
Studies. He
holds a Masters Degree in Sociology from University College Dublin. His
interests
include the
sociology of work, industrial relations and the general education of engineers.
His
recent focus has
been on educating engineers for social responsibility. He has also written and
lectured on the
Irish model of social partnership of which he is a critic.
Joep van Hasselt
(1946) is the managing teacher for the courses that cover the societal context
of
the curricula in
the Faculty of Applied Sciences of Delft University of Technology. He holds an
MSc in chemical
technology (Delft 1970). He became associated with the Delft University in 2003
after a career
in the chemical industry. His current activities concern the operational
management,
but particularly
also the development of the (coherence between the) courses covering
entrepreneurship, process and product design, and ethics from the sustainability
point of view.
Topi Heikkerö is
researcher at the Center for Social Ethics, Department of Systematic Theology,
University of
Helsinki. He holds MTh (theological ethics and philosophy of religion) and MA
(theoretical
philosophy). Mr. Heikkerö is currently finishing his doctoral dissertation
“Ethics in a
Technological
World.” The dissertation aims at mapping the discussions on ethics and
technology
as well as
assessing four major approaches to the thematic. He has participated in ethics
teaching in the
University of Helsinki and in Colorado School of Mines.
Behnam Taebi
graduated from Delft University of Technology as an engineer in materials
science.
He works in the
Philosophy department of the faculty of TPM of Delft University of Technology.
He
teaches ethics
courses for several BSc and MSc programmes in engineering, and he performs a
PhD thesis on
technology and democracy: decision making about developments of nuclear
energy.
Natalie Wagner
is a sophomore in Economics and Business. She is the Undergraduate research
assistant for
the Hewlett foundation as well as the current President of Engineers for a
Better
World. She is
originally from Boulder, Colorado.
Henk Zandvoort
(1951) is associate professor in ethics and technology at Delft University of
Technology. He
did a master’s degree in physical chemistry and in philosophy of the natural
sciences, and a
PhD in philosophy, all at the University of Groningen. Between 1986 and 1997 his
main assignment
was at the Dutch Ministry of Education and Sciences, in a range of policy
functions
related to higher education and university research. He has been associated with
Delft
University of
Technology since 1991. He teaches courses on ethical aspects of technology and
engineering for
different MSc programmes. His does research on conditions and methods for
responsible and
coherent assessment, management, regulation, and decision making regarding
risk generating
technological activities.
|
back
to top