The Development of Ethical Reasoning: A Comparison of Online versus Hybrid Delivery Modes of Ethics Instruction

There is a concerted effort to improve online learning opportunities in higher education, including in the domain of engineering ethics. The benefits of online learning include ease in sharing course content, flexibility in the timing of participation, and increased variation in delivery modes for course material. However, the effect of online and hybrid participation on developing ethical reasoning in students is largely unknown, and interactive cases and dialogic learning are central to the pedagogy in ethics courses. An opportunity to fill this knowledge gap occurred while testing a new pedagogy for enhancing ethical reasoning among engineering graduate students, implemented in a graduate-level course over three offerings in Spring 2014, Summer 2014, and Spring 2015. Of the 29 students enrolled, 11 participated on-campus in a weekly class discussion-based lecture, and 18 completed the majority of course activities online. This multi-phase study presents results from a comparative analysis of the differences in ethical reasoning development and perception of course activities across these groups. Both groups of students showed substantial gains in their ethical reasoning development. Furthermore, changes in ethical reasoning were not significantly different when students participated in the on-line only versus an on-line/in-class or “hybrid” format. Nonetheless, analysis from post-course surveys indicated that the hybrid group perceived course activities more favorably than did their on-line only peers. In sum, these results indicate that on-line ethics interventions can be designed to be as impactful in developing ethical reasoning as formats that include an in-class component, although students may be more satisfied with ethics education when they have the opportunity for face-to-face, in-class interaction with peers and instructors

Applying Phenomenography to Develop a Comprehensive Understanding of Ethics in Engineering Practice

This Work-in-Progress Research paper describes (1) the contemporary research space on ethics education in engineering; (2) our long-term research plan; (3) the theoretical underpinnings of Phase 1 of our research plan (phenomenography); and (4) the design and developmental process of a phenomenographic interview protocol to explore engineers' experiences with ethics. Ethical behavior is a complex phenomenon that is complicated by the institutional and cultural contexts in which it occurs. Engineers also have varied roles and often work in a myriad of capacities that influence their experiences with and understanding of ethics in practice. We are using phenomenography, a qualitative research approach, to explore and categorize the ways engineers experience and understand ethical engineering practice. Specifically, phenomenography will allow us to systematically investigate the range and complexity of ways that engineers experience ethics in professional practice in the health products industry. Phenomenographic data will be obtained through a specialized type of semi-structured interview. Here we introduce the design of our interview protocol and its four sections: Background, Experience, Conceptual, and Summative. We also describe our iterative process for framing questions throughout each section

Advancing medical technology innovation and clinical translation via a model of industry-enabled technical and educational support: Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute’s Medical Technology Advance Program

The success rate for translation of newly engineered medical technologies into clinical practice is low. Traversing the “translational valleys of death” requires a high level of knowledge of the complex landscape of technical, ethical, regulatory, and commercialization challenges along a multi-agency path of approvals. The Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute developed a program targeted at increasing that success rate through comprehensive training, education, and resourcing. The Medical Technology Advance Program (MTAP) provides technical, educational, and consultative assistance to investigators that leverages partnerships with experts in the health products industry to speed progress toward clinical implementation. The training, resourcing, and guidance are integrated through the entire journey of medical technology translation. Investigators are supported through a set of courses that cover bioethics, ethical engineering, preclinical and clinical study design, regulatory submissions, entrepreneurship, and commercialization. In addition to the integrated technical and educational resources, program experts provide direct consultation for planning each phase along the life cycle of translation. Since 2008, nearly 200 investigators have gained assistance from MTAP resulting in over 100 publications and patents. This support via medicine–engineering–industry partnership provides a unique and novel opportunity to expedite new medical technologies into clinical and product implementation

A Principlist Approach For Thinking About The Social Impacts Of Engineering

A recent report from the National Academies of Science and Engineering with the Institute of Medicine highlights an emerging shift in thinking about the process of technology development. The report, commissioned by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, focused new attention on the conversation about social contexts and impacts of engineering, particularly the designing and implementation of new technologies. This report suggested a need for changes in the content of the conversation about social impacts of engineering to include broader issues such as social justice and respect for autonomy as well as in the diversity of participants of that conversation. These changes raise an important question for engineering educators: How do we best prepare engineering students to participate in the changing conversation about the social context and ethical impacts of their profession? Developing an answer requires a rethinking of paradigms and pedagogies for teaching about professional responsibilities and communication competence. In this paper we propose that the four principles of a common morality could provide a rigorous framework for engineers to engage with a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives on the social contexts and impacts of engineering. This principlist framework opens space for engineers to more richly explore the complexity of both direct and indirect social impacts resulting from their work. Thus, in this paper we argue that such a principle-based approach applied reflectively in the context of engineering design, is an important component of a response to these challenges of communication competence. The specification and balancing of the four principles that is essential to this principlist approach requires thinking together in specific contexts about the perspectives and potential social and ethical concerns of diverse stakeholders, ranging from corporations to culturally-diverse individuals, to animals and the environment. Developing an answer to the question of appropriate pedagogy certainly will involve significant dialogic interactions between engineering educators and educators in several disciplines in the humanities. While some engineering educators are focusing the emphasis of their work on these issues, the terminology, discourse communities, and educational practices associated with the topics of social impact such as autonomy and justice, for example, most often come from disciplines outside engineering and are not readily ascertainable by engineering students or even faculty members. As complex social and ethical issues are growing in emphasis in engineering contexts, engineering professionals as well struggle to frame their thinking and find effective language for necessary engagement with diverse perspectives. A principlist approach, applied through a series of case examples, could provide a framework within which engineers can responsibly and effectively communicate about the changing ethical content and with a more diverse range of participants in the conversation concerning the contextual influences and potential impacts of engineering on society

Empathic Perspective-Taking And Ethical Decision-Making In Engineering Ethics Education

Ethical decision-making within engineering has not been broadly studied, although there is a growing body of evidence supporting the view that missteps in ethical decision-making result in changes in organizational culture and in disasters which in turn negatively impact a broad number of stakeholders. The ethical decision-making framework we propose in this paper builds on the notion of empathy as central, although not sufficient in of itself, to the ethical decision-making process. We build on work outside of engineering on the role of empathy in ethical reasoning along with an emerging model of empathy within engineering, drawing on literature in the fields of philosophy, social psychology, neuroscience, and engineering education. We first discuss what empathy is and how empathy informs ethical decision-making in general, with a specific focus on the cognitive form of empathy or what we call empathic perspective-taking. Next we explore methods through which engineers might empathically think and act in ethically challenging situations. Finally, we explore a range of engineering contexts and cases that highlight the role empathy plays in coming to an ethically justifiable decision in specific contexts. We conclude with the suggestion that engineering ethics educators need to develop effective tools for developing and assessing empathic perspective-taking to promote ethical decision-making within the practice of engineering