Lessons learned from a year in the trenches: Teaching engineering ethics for P.E. licensure requirements

L. Grossenbacher, Thomas McGlamery
{"title":"Lessons learned from a year in the trenches: Teaching engineering ethics for P.E. licensure requirements","authors":"L. Grossenbacher, Thomas McGlamery","doi":"10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On August 1, 2012, the state of Wisconsin instituted new continuing education requirements for professional engineers seeking re-licensure, and those requirements include two hours of engineering ethics education. The Department of Engineering Professional Development at the University of Wisconsin began developing ethics seminars and webinars to provide these credits to engineers in the state of Wisconsin. This paper explores several observations from talking with over 1000 practicing engineers in the past year. These include (1) that engineers typically do not use available professional codes of ethics when addressing ethical dilemmas; unsurprisingly, many instead employ what could be called common-sense ethics; (2) that organizational politics sometimes constrain discussion of case studies during these sessions; (3) that engineers in private and public sectors often carry differing views of the ethics of gift-giving; and (4) that experienced engineers, in particular, employ what could be called “gut-check” ethics that rely on intuition to determine right from wrong. We address the challenges these observations present and note opportunities for further analysis through study of the psychology of influence, motivated blindness, and cognitive biases. Regardless of the challenges we note here, it is clear that engineers place a high value on the opportunity to discuss case studies in ethics with other professional engineers, and when properly done, licensure training in ethics can provide a unique mentoring opportunity for the profession. Our existing PE seminar is a work in progress, and we hope this paper will initiate fruitful conversations about future directions as we develop an advanced seminar.","PeriodicalId":101738,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

On August 1, 2012, the state of Wisconsin instituted new continuing education requirements for professional engineers seeking re-licensure, and those requirements include two hours of engineering ethics education. The Department of Engineering Professional Development at the University of Wisconsin began developing ethics seminars and webinars to provide these credits to engineers in the state of Wisconsin. This paper explores several observations from talking with over 1000 practicing engineers in the past year. These include (1) that engineers typically do not use available professional codes of ethics when addressing ethical dilemmas; unsurprisingly, many instead employ what could be called common-sense ethics; (2) that organizational politics sometimes constrain discussion of case studies during these sessions; (3) that engineers in private and public sectors often carry differing views of the ethics of gift-giving; and (4) that experienced engineers, in particular, employ what could be called “gut-check” ethics that rely on intuition to determine right from wrong. We address the challenges these observations present and note opportunities for further analysis through study of the psychology of influence, motivated blindness, and cognitive biases. Regardless of the challenges we note here, it is clear that engineers place a high value on the opportunity to discuss case studies in ethics with other professional engineers, and when properly done, licensure training in ethics can provide a unique mentoring opportunity for the profession. Our existing PE seminar is a work in progress, and we hope this paper will initiate fruitful conversations about future directions as we develop an advanced seminar.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一年来的经验教训:教授符合体育执照要求的工程伦理
2012年8月1日,威斯康辛州对寻求重新获得执照的专业工程师制定了新的继续教育要求,这些要求包括两小时的工程伦理教育。威斯康星大学工程专业发展部开始举办道德研讨会和网络研讨会,为威斯康星州的工程师提供这些学分。本文探讨了在过去一年中与1000多名执业工程师交谈的一些观察结果。这些包括(1)工程师在处理道德困境时通常不使用现有的专业道德规范;不出所料,许多人转而采用所谓的常识性伦理;(2)在这些会议中,组织政治有时会限制案例研究的讨论;(3)私营部门和公共部门的工程师通常对送礼的道德规范持有不同的看法;(4)特别是经验丰富的工程师,采用所谓的“直觉检查”伦理,依靠直觉来判断是非。我们解决了这些观察带来的挑战,并通过研究影响心理学、动机盲目性和认知偏见指出了进一步分析的机会。不管我们在这里注意到的挑战是什么,很明显,工程师们非常重视与其他专业工程师讨论道德案例研究的机会,如果做得好,道德方面的执照培训可以为这个行业提供独特的指导机会。我们现有的体育研讨会正在进行中,我们希望这篇论文能够在我们发展高级研讨会的同时,就未来的方向展开富有成效的对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ethical education of an engineer with responsibility for a sustainable world Lessons learned from a year in the trenches: Teaching engineering ethics for P.E. licensure requirements Does “public” mean an engineer's nation? Introducing graduate and undergraduate students to research and professional ethics at Columbia University Towards a global Code of Ethics for engineers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1