Abstract of Presentation: Charles E. Harris, Jr.

In the first part of this presentation, I discuss the early history and evaluation of our engineering ethics course. The course began with twenty students and grew to an enrollment of over five hundred each semester. An evaluation of the effect of the course on the moral reasoning skills of students, using the Defining Issues Test, showed that there was a significant increase in these skills. There is also evidence, from studies of medical students and practitioners, that increasing the moral reasoning skills of professionals has a desirable effect on their professional behavior.

In the second part of this presentation, I discuss evidence that there may be a shift of orientation, or at least an enlargement, in the subject matter of the emerging discipline of engineering ethics. In the early years, and still for the most part today, the focus of attention was on preventing improper professional behavior on the part of engineers and on avoiding harmful effects of technology on society and, more recently, on the environment. There are now indications that, in addition to the traditional themes, engineering ethicists want to focus on the thesis that engineers, as the primary creators and as important custodians of technology, have a responsibility to promote the public welfare through technology. I briefly mention five themes that seem to point in this new direction.

Biographical Note for Charles E. Harris, Jr.

My undergraduate work at Vanderbilt University was in biology and chemistry, and I received a Ph.D. in philosophy from that institution in 1964. I have spent the majority of my career in the philosophy department at Texas A&M University. Most of my publications are in the field of ethics. In addition to articles and presentations, I have published three books. The two that are best known are Applying Moral Theories and (with Michael J. Rabins and Michael S. Pritchard) Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases.

Abstract : Challenges in teaching and assessing ethics in life sciences

The positivist discourse, which dominates the life sciences, proposes the main challenge to any efforts to include ethics in a life sciences curriculum. If the core premise of applied professional ethics dialogue is the appreciation that singular rights answers may not exist, ethics studies will require life sciences students to overcome a significant methodological shift. In order to place ethics into a useful and acceptable context for science students, focus on professional skills is an option. This allows approaching ethics without facing the direct conflict with existing scientific knowledge and methodology and thus reduces the initial barrier for ethics teaching. Further, it allows students valuable room to consider their careers and work from a broader perspective to encourage appreciation of professional skills and qualities. Teaching methods most appropriately abandon traditional lecturing in favour of team-based problem-solving, structured discussions, debates and other interactive activities which challenge students to develop ethical skills.

Adoption of the skills approach to ethics teaching within life sciences requires suitably aligned assessment procedures. It is inappropriate to measure knowledge, as it is a poor indicator of skills. Assessments need to be based on application of chosen skills of ethical analysis and decision-making as well as reflection on their own professional growth. Case-studies, presentations, media critiques and learning journals are proposed as possible assessment methods.

Biographical note:

Dr Henriikka Clarkeburn is an adjunct lecturer in professional ethics in departments of Government and International Relations, International Business, and Civil Engineering at the University of Sydney. Her research interests include ethical decision-making in professional contexts and the pedagogy of ethics teaching in tertiary education. She has published in various international journals on ethics teaching, academic honesty and health care ethics. She has strong research and teaching links with universities in Northern Europe.

Influencing the ethical development of scientists and engineers: Lessons from the dental profession.

Abstract

My purpose is to draw implications for teaching and assessing science and engineering ethics from 25 years of experience designing and assessing ethical development in the dental profession. Data sources for the implications include: (1) pretest/posttest data for 20 cohorts of dental students who completed a well-validated ethics program, (2) pre/post assessments of 43 practitioners who completed an individualized ethics course following disciplinary action by a licensing Board, (3) life-stories of 10 exemplary professionals, and (4) efforts in several professions to influence ethical development.

After pointing out some of the features of the dental ethics program, I describe the program's theoretical foundations (e.g., the processes of morality), then take up each process in turn, addressing the research questions that motivated our inquiry, describing the assessment methods we developed or used, and summarizing the evidence on program effectiveness. I conclude with a summary of data supporting the independence of the component processes, a discussion of the ongoing search for behavioral indicators that could provide the "acid test" for the model, and a discussion of the implications for teaching and assessing for professional ethical development.

Muriel J. Bebeau, Ph.D., is a Professor in the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, a Faculty Associate in the University’s Center for Bioethics, and Director of the Center for the Study of Ethical Development. In the early 80s, she pioneered the teaching of ethics in dentistry and is widely recognized for her contributions to the psychology of morality and its application for assessing and promoting ethical development. In recognition of contributions to dental ethics, the American College of Dentists awarded her an honorary fellowship. The Association for Moral Education recognized her contributions to moral psychology with its lifetime achievement award, and in 2003, she received a Civilian Meritorious Service Award for her work to promote character and other dimensions of military leadership. Dr. Bebeau is also the recipient of several research, educational innovation, and publication awards, including an Outstanding Book Award from the American Educational Research Association for Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999). A summary of her contributions for teaching and assessing ethical development are reported in the IOM (Institute of Medicine) report: Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct (National Academy Press, 2002). Her most recent work on professional identity formation is described in a book published by Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc entitled: Dentists Who Care: Inspiring Stories of Professional Commitment (Rule & Bebeau, 2005).

while serving as a Visiting Scholar and Professor of Character Development at the W.E. Simon Center for Professional Military Ethics at the United States Military Academy,West Point, NY.

Assessing How Engineering Students Resolve Ethical Dilemmas

Abstract

Little empirical research has focused on the process that engineering students use for ethical decision making. In response, we are investigating how engineering students resolve ethical dilemmas, both individually and in teams. Specifically, we are assessing a number of factors including the process used to address the dilemma, the quality of the resultant resolution and those variables that potentially affect both the resolution and decision process. To provide a framework for our research we have combined two models from the literature: Jones’ Synthesis of Ethical Decision Making Model [1] (a descriptive model based in part on Rest’s work [2]) and the Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins (HPR) Model [3, 4] (a normative model, and probably the most widely used and comprehensive model for ethical engineering decision making) into a Conceptual Individual/Team Ethical Decision Making Model.

Our conceptual model includes five categories of factors that influence the decision making process: problem characteristics, individual attributes, personal environment, team characteristics, and the professional/legal environment. The Individual Attributes are further categorized along seven sub-groups: (1) level of moral development, (2) view of self, (3) view of self versus the peer environment/organization, (4) one’s religious moral values, (5) one’s knowledge, (6) one’s ethical behavior/responsibility for consequences, and (7) one’s demographics. It is these latter characteristics that we are particularly interested in assessing.

Our experimental design involves both teams of engineering students and individuals solving engineering based ethical dilemmas. Half of the participants have had a course in engineering ethics; and the other half will have had no formal training in ethical decision making. Both the teams and individuals are being videotaped while they complete their assigned tasks, allowing us to observe and assess the processes and strategies used in resolving the posed ethical dilemmas.

In addition to resolving the ethical dilemmas, participants are being asked to take a number of instruments including the Defining Issues Test (DIT), Ethical Self-Efficacy Test, a demographic survey, and the Professional Developer^TM. Behavioral observation techniques are being used for process evaluation; to assess the outcome, our rubric is being used Shuman et. al. [5] We will discuss the results to date with a focus on the relationship among the various measures for assessing engineering ethical decision making.