Sustainability competency: Anticipatory; Integrated problem-solving; Strategic; Systems thinking.
Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 13 (Climate action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; Authentic assessment; Active pedagogies and mindset development.
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate ESD into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.
Learning and Teaching Notes:
Supported by AdvanceHE, this Toolkit provides a structured approach to integrating Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into higher education curricula. It uses the CRAFTS methodology and empowers educators to enhance their modules and programs with sustainability competencies aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Key Features:
• Five-Phase Process: Analyse stakeholder needs, map current provision, reflect on opportunities for development, redesign with an ESD focus, and create an action plan for continuous enhancement.
• Practical Tools: Includes templates for stakeholder analysis, module planning, active learning activities, and evaluation.
• Flexible Implementation: Designed for use at both module and programme level.
• Competency-Based: Focuses on developing authentic learning experiences across cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioural domains.
Benefits
• Identify stakeholder sustainability needs
• Map existing ESD elements in your curriculum
• Reflect on opportunities to enhance ESD integration
• Redesign modules with active learning approaches of ESD
• Create actionable plans for implementation and evaluation
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Activity: Assessment. This example demonstrates how the questions provided in Assessing ethics: Rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level.
Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).
This example demonstrates how the questions provided in the accompanying rubric can be used to assess the competencies stipulated at each level. Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.
Year 1
Personal values: What is your initial position on the issue? Do you see anything wrong with how DSS are using water? Why, or why not?
Students should provide a stance, but more importantly their stance should be justified. In this instance this may involve reference to common moral values such as environmental sustainability, risk associated with power issues and questions of ownership.
Professional responsibilities: What ethical principles and codes of conduct are relevant to this situation?
Students should refer to relevant principles (e.g. from the Joint Statement of Ethical Principles). For example, in this case some of the relevant principles may include (but not be limited to) “protect, and where possible improve, the quality of built and natural environment”, “maximise the public good and minimise both actual and potential adverse effects for their own and succeeding generations” and “take due account of the limited availability of natural resources”.
Ethical principles and codes of conduct can be used to guide our actions during an ethical dilemma. How does the guidance provided in this case align/differ with your personal views? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students’ answers will depend upon those given to the previous questions but should include some discussion of similarities and differences between their own initial thoughts and principles/codes of conducts, and allude to the tensions involved in ethical dilemmas and the impact on decision making.
What are the moral values involved in this case and why does it constitute an ethical dilemma? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students should be able to identify relevant moral values and explain that an ethical dilemma constitutes a problem in which two or more moral values or norms cannot be fully realised at the same time.
There are two (or a limited number of) options for action and whatever they choose they will commit a moral wrong. The crucial feature of a moral dilemma is not the number of actions that are available but the fact that all possible actions are morally unsatisfactory.
What role should an engineer play in influencing the outcome? What are the implications of not being involved? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Engineers are responsible for the design of technological advancements which necessitate data storage. Although this brings many benefits, engineers need to consider the adverse impact of technological advancement such as increased water use. Students may therefore want to consider the wider implications of data storage on the environment and how these can be mitigated.
Year 2
Formulate a moral problem statement which clearly states the problem, its moral nature and who needs to act. (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
An example could be: “Should the civil engineer working for DSS remain loyal to the company and defend them against accusations of causing environmental hazards, or defend their water rights and say that they will not change their behaviour”. It should be clear what the problem is, the moral values at play and who needs to act.
Stakeholder mapping: Who are all the stakeholders in the scenario? What are their positions, perspective and moral values?
Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the relevant stakeholders and values that may come up.
Stakeholder
Perspectives/interests
Moralvalues
DataStorageSolutions (DSS)
Increasing production in a profitable way; meeting legal requirements; good reputationtomaintain/grow customer base.
Representviewsofthose concerned about biodiversity. May be interested in opening ofgreenbattery plant.
Human welfare; environmental sustainability;justice.
LocalCouncil
Represent views of all stakeholders and would needtoconsidereconomic benefits of DSS (tax and employment), the need of theuniversityandhospital, as well as the needs of local farmers and environmentalists. May beinterestedinopeningof green battery plant.
This may depend on their beliefs as an individual, their employment status and their use of services such as the hospital and university. Typically interested in low taxes/responsible spending of public money. May be interested in opening of green batteryplant.
Reliable storage. They mayalsobeinterestedin being part of an ethical supply chain.
Trust; privacy; accountability;autonomy.
Non-humanstakeholders
Environmental sustainability.
What are some of the possible courses of action in the situation. What responsibilities do you have to the various stakeholders involved? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each? (Reworded from case study.)
Students should provide a stance but may recognise the tensions involved. For example, at a micro level, tensions between loyalty to the profession and loyalty to the company/personal financial stability. Responsibilities to fellow employees may include the degree to which you risk their jobs by being honest. They may also feel that they should protect environmental and natural resources.
At a macro level, they may consider the need for engineers to inform decisions regarding issues that engineering and technology raise for society (e.g. increased water being needed for data storage) and listen to the aspirations and concerns of others, and challenging statements or policies that cause them professional concern.
What are the relevant facts in this scenario and what other information would you like to help inform your ethical decision making? (This is a question we had created in addition to those provided within the case study to meet the requirements stipulated in the accompanying rubric.)
Students should identify which facts within the case study are relevant in terms of making an ethical decision. In this case, some of the relevant facts may include:
Water use permissible by law (“the data centre always uses the maximum amount legally allotted to it.”)
This centre manages data which is vital for the local community, including the safe running of schools and hospitals, and that its operation requires sufficient water for cooling.
In more arid months, the nearby river almost runs dry, resulting in large volumes of fish dying.
Water levels in farmers’ wells have dropped, making irrigation much more expensive and challenging.
A new green battery plant is planned to open nearby that will create more data demand and has the potential to further increase DSS’ water use.
Obtaining water from other sources will be costly to DSS and may not be practically possible, let alone commercially viable.
Studentsshouldbeawarethatincompleteinformationhindersdecisionmakingduring ethical dilemmas, and that in some cases, further information will be needed to help inform decisions. In this case, some of the questions may pertain to:
Exactly how much water is being used and the legal rights.
Relationship between farmer and DSS/contractual obligations.
How costly irrigation is to the farmers (economic impact), as well as the knock-on impact to their business and supply chain.
How many people DSS employ and how important they are for local economy.
Detail regarding biodiversity loss and its wider impact.
How likely it is that the green battery plant will open and whether DSS is the only eligible supplier.
How much the green battery plant contract is worth to DSS.
How much water the green battery plant will use in the case that DSS get the contract.
Whether DSS is the only option for hospital and university.
What will happen if the services DSS provide to the hospital and university stop or becomes unreliable.
Year 2/Year 3
(At Year 2, students could provide options; at Year 3 they would evaluate and form a judgement.)
Make use of ethical frameworks and/or professional codes to evaluate the options for DSS both short term and long term. How do the uncertainty and assumptions involved in this case impact decision making?
Students should list plausible options. They can then analyse them with respect to different ethical frameworks (whilst we don’t necessary make use of normative ethical theories, analysis according to consequences, intention or action may be a useful approach to this). Below we have included a non-exhaustive list of options with ideas in terms of analysis.
Option
Consequences
Intention
Action
Keepusing water
May lead to expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply.
Reputational damage of DSS may increase. Individual employee piece of mind may be at risk.
Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers which may have further impact long term.
Intentionbehindaction notconsistentwith that expected by an engineer, other than with respect to legality
Actionfollowslegalnormsbut not social norms such as good will and concern for others.
Keep using the water but limit furtherwork
May limit expansion and profit of DSS and thus tax revenue/employment and supply.
Farmers still don’t have water and biodiversity still suffers and may have further impact long term. This could still result in reputation damage.
Intentionbehindaction partially consistent with that expected by an engineer.
Actionfollowslegalnormsbut only partially follow social norms such as good will and concern for others.
Makeuseof other sources of water
Data storage continues.
Potential for reputation to increase.
Potential increase in cost of water resulting in less profit potentially less tax revenue/employment.
Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.
Alternativewatersourcesmaybeassociated with the same issues or worse.
Intention behind action seems consistent with that expected by an engineer. However, this is dependent upon
whether they chose to source sustainablewaterwithlessimpact on biodiversity etc.
Thismaybedependenton the degree to which DSS proactively source sustainable water.
Reduce worklevels or shut down
Impact on profit and thus tax revenue/employment and supply chain. Farmers have water and biodiversity may improve.
May cause operational issues for those whose data is stored.
Seems consistent with those expected of engineer. Raises questions more generally about viability and feasibility of datastorage.
Action doesn’t follow social norms of responsibility to employeesandshareholders.
Investigate othercooling methods which don’t require as much water/don’t take on extra work untilanother method identified.
May benefit whole sector.
May cause interim loss of service.
This follows expectations of the engineeringprofession in terms of evidence-baseddecisionmaking and consideration for impact of engineering in society.
It follows social norms in termsofresponsibledecision making.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr. Natalie Wint (UCL); Dr. William Bennett (Swansea University).
Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design.
As engineering educators, it is uncommon that we were taught or assessed on ethical thinking within our own degree programmes. Although we may be able to think of plenty of ethical scenarios from our own experience, we may not necessarily be able to identify the best way to assess the ability of a student to engage in ethical thinking in a systematic and robust manner, something which is critical for both the evaluation of learning and teaching (as explained further here).
Furthermore, the complex, ill-structured nature of ethical dilemmas, which often involve a variety of diverse stakeholders, perspectives and cultural norms, necessitates an ability to navigate tensions and compromise. This results in situations in which multiple possible courses of action can be identified, meaning that there is not one single ‘good’ or ‘correct’ answer to ethical questions posed.
It is also necessary to evidence that students are able to meet the criteria outlined by accreditation bodies. Within the UK context, it is the Engineering Council (EC) that is responsible for providing the principal framework which guides engineering course content and sets accreditation threshold standards of competence through AHEP, the Accreditation of Higher Education Programs, as part of The UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UKSPEC).
The knowledge, skills and attributes expected of engineering graduates constantly shifts, and since the advent of AHEP in 2004 there has been increased focus on strengthening design, and consideration for economic, ethical, environmental, legal, and social factors.
In-keeping with a need to assess engineering ethics in a robust manner, this article provides step-by-step considerations for designing assessment and is primarily intended to be used in conjunction with an existing ethics case study, such as those available through the EPC’s Engineering Ethics Toolkit (we later make use of the existing ‘Water Wars’ case study to exemplify the points made).
The guidance and accompanying rubric have been designed in a way that encourages students to grapple with the numerous tensions involved in ethical decision making, and the focus is thus on assessment of the decision-making process as opposed to the ‘answer’ given, the decision made or the outcome of the scenario.
Assessment purpose:
The first consideration is the year group you are assessing, and the competencies they have already acquired (for example in the case of Level 5 and Level 6 students). You may want to consider the (partial) learning outcome (LO) as defined by AHEP4 LO8 (Table 1). Whilst this shouldn’t act to limit what you choose to assess, it is a good place to start in terms of the level of ability your students should be demonstrating.
Note that the Engineering Council (EC) claim “This fourth edition of AHEP has reduced the total number of learning outcomes in order to focus attention on core areas, eliminate duplication and demonstrate progression between academic levels of study”. They are thus interested in the differences between level. You are recommended to make this explicit in module specification and associated assessment description. Key differentiations are shown in Table 1. For example, at Level 5 you may be more interested in students’ abilities to identify an ethical situation, whereas at Level 6 you may want them to be able to reason through options or make a judgement.
Table 1: AHEP4 Learning Outcomes
Year 1 (Level 4)
Year 2 (Level 5)
Year 3 (Level 6)
M Level (Level 7)
LO8
Apply ethical principles and recognise the need for engineers to exercise their responsibilities in an ethical manner and in line with professional codes of conduct.
Identify ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct.
Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct.
Identify and analyse ethical concerns and make reasoned ethical choices informed by professional codes of conduct (MEng).
Interpretation
Awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities; sensitising students to ethical issues.
Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments.
Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments.
Ability to resolve practical problems; identify ethical issues and examine and evaluate/critique opposing arguments.
The final row in Table 1 provides our interpretation of the LO, making use of language similar to that within the EPC’s Ethics Learning Landscape. We believe this is more accessible and more easily operationalised.
The following steps outline the process involved in designing your assessment. Throughout we make reference to an existing EPC case study (Water Wars) to exemplify the points made.
1.) The first consideration is how much time you have and how much of the case study you want to use. Many of the case studies have multiple stages and could be spread over several sessions depending on time constraints.
2.) Linked to this is deciding whether you want to assess any other LOs within the assessment. For example, many of the case studies have technical elements. Furthermore, when using reports, presentations, or debates as methods of assessment you may also want to assess communication skills. Whatever you decide you should be careful to design the assessment in such a way that assesses LO8 in a robust manner, whereby the student could not pass the element without demonstrating they have met the individual LO to the required level (this is a key requirement to meet AHEP4). For example, in an assessment piece where ethics is worth 50% of the grade, a student could still pass the element as a whole (with 40%) by achieving high scores in the other grading criteria without the need to demonstrate their ability to meet LO8.
3.) Once you are aware how much of a case study you have time for and have decided which LOs (other than LO8) you are assessing, you should start to determine which questions are aligned with the level of study you are considering and/or the ability of the students (for example you may query whether students at Level 5 have already developed the skills and competencies suggested for Level 4). At each level you can make use of the accompanying rubric to help you consider how the relevant attributes might be demonstrated by students. As an example, please refer to the accompanying document where we provide our thoughts about how we would assess Water Wars at Levels 4-6.
4.) Once you have selected questions you could look to add any complementary activities or tasks (that do not necessarily have to be assessed) to help the students broaden their understanding of the problem and ability to think through their response. For example, in the Water Wars case study, there are multiple activities (for example Part 1, Q3 and Part 2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7) aimed at helping students understand different perspectives which may help them to answer further ethical questions. There are also technical questions (for example Part 1, Q5) which help students understand the integrated nature of technical and social aspects and contextualise scenarios.
5.) Once you have selected your questions you will need to make a marking rubric which includes details of the weightings given for each component of the assessment. (This is where you will need to be careful in selecting whether other LOs are assessed e.g., communication, and whether a student can pass the assessment/module without hitting LO8). You can then make use of the guidance provided in terms of expectations at a threshold and advanced level, to write criteria for what is expected at each grade demarcation.
Although we have focused on ‘Water Wars’ here, the suggested assessment questions within the accompanying rubric have been designed in such a way that they can be used in conjunction with the case studies available within the toolkit, or with another case study that has been created (by yourself or elsewhere) to outline an ethical dilemma.
Other considerations:
As acknowledged elsewhere within the toolkit (see here), there are “practical limits on assessment” (Davis and Feinerman, 2012) of ethics, including demands on time, pressure from other instructors or administrators, and difficulty in connecting assessment of ethics with assessment of technical content. These are some other considerations you may wish to make when planning assessment.
• Number of students and/or marking burden: With large student numbers you may be more inclined to choose a group assessment method (which may also be beneficial in allowing students to share perspectives and engage in debate), or a format which is relatively quick to mark/allows automated marking (e.g. a quiz). In the case of group work it is important to find a way in which to ensure that all students within each group meet the LO in a robust manner. Whilst assessment formats such as quizzes may be useful for assessing basic knowledge, they are limited in their ability to ensure that students have developed the higher-level competencies needed to meet the LO at output level.
• Academic integrity: As with any LO there is a need to ensure academic integrity. This may be particularly difficult for large cohorts and group work. You may wish to have a range of case studies or ensure assessment takes place in a controlled environment (e.g. an essay/report under exam conditions). This is particularly important at output level where you may wish to provide individual assessment under exam conditions (although competencies may be developed in groups in class).
• Logistics/resourcing: Many of the competencies associated with ethics are heavily linked to communication and argumentation, and answers tend to be highly individual in nature. Role play, debates, and presentations may therefore be considered the most suitable method of assessment. However, their use is often limited by staffing, room, and time constraints. Many of these methods could, instead, be used within class time to help students develop competencies prior to formal assessment. You may also choose to assess ethics in another assessment which is more heavily resourced (for example design projects or third year projects).
• Staged assessment: The ethical reasoning process benefits from different perspectives. It may therefore be desirable to stage assessment in such a way that individuals form their own answer (e.g. a moral problem statement), before sharing within a group. In this way a group problem statement, which benefits from multiple perspectives and considerations, can be formed. Similarly, individuals may take the role of an individual stakeholder in an ethical dilemma before coming together as a group.
• Use of exams: Whilst we see an increasing movement away from exams, we feel that a (closed book) exam is a suitable method of assessment of ethics based LOs in the situation that:
o There is a need to ensure academic integrity, and that each student meets the LO at output level.
o The exam is assessing competencies (e.g. ethical argumentation) as opposed to knowledge.
o All the relevant information needed is provided and there is limited content for students to learn in advance (aside from argumentation, justification, decision making skills etc developed in class).
Their use may therefore be limited to Level 6.
Rubric
This document provides the partial AHEPLO8 at each level. The competences involved in meeting this LO have then been identified, along with what students would need to demonstrate to evidence meeting a threshold level, or advanced level. Example questions are given to show how students may demonstrate their competence at each level. For each question there is an explanation of how the question supports achievement of LO at that level. The rubrics should be used alongside the accompanying guidance document which offers practical suggestions and advice.
Year 1: This year focuses on developing awareness of issues, obligations, and responsibilities, and sensitising students to ethical issues.
Year 2: This year focuses on developing the ability to identify ethical issues and to examine opposing arguments, all of which is needed to examine, analyse, and evaluate ethical dilemmas in Year 3.
Year 3: This year focuses on ensuring that students can satisfy LO8 at an output level in a robust manner.
References:
Davis, M. and A. Feinerman. (2012). ‘Assessing graduate student progress in engineering ethics’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), pp. 351-367.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: The Lemelson Foundation; Cynthia Anderson, Sarah Jayne Hitt and Jonathan Truslove (Eds.)
Topic: Accreditation mapping for sustainability in engineering education.
Tool type: Guidance.
Engineering disciplines: Any.
Keywords: Accreditation and standards; Learning outcomes; AHEP; Student support; Sustainability; Higher education; Students; Teaching or embedding sustainability.
Sustainability competency: Critical thinking; Systems thinking; Integrated problem-solving; Collaboration.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4). See details about mapping within the guide.
Related SDGs: SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; More real-world complexity; Cross-disciplinarity.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Learning and teaching notes:
This guide, currently under review by the Engineering Council, maps the Engineering for One Planet (EOP) Framework to AHEP4. The EOP Framework is a practical tool for curricular supplementation and modification, comprising 93 sustainability focused learning outcomes in 9 topic areas.
The Lemelson Foundation, VentureWell, and Alula Consulting stewarded the co-development of the EOP Framework with hundreds of individuals mostly situated in the United States. Now, in collaboration with the EPC and Engineers Without Borders UK, the EOP Framework’s student learning outcomes have been mapped to AHEP4 at the Chartered Engineer (CEng) level to ensure that UK educators can more easily align these outcomes and corresponding resources with learning activities, coursework, and assessments within their modules.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr Homeira Shayesteh (Senior Lecturer/Programme Leader for Architectural Technology, Design Engineering & Mathematics Department, Faculty of Science & Technology, Middlesex University),Professor Jarka Glassey(Director of Education, School of Engineering, Newcastle University).
Topic: How to integrate the SDGs using a practical framework.
Type: Guidance.
Relevant disciplines: Any.
Keywords: Accreditation and standards; Assessment; Global responsibility; Learning outcomes; Sustainability; AHEP; SDGs; Curriculum design; Course design; Higher education; Pedagogy.
Sustainability competency: Anticipatory; Integrated problem-solving; Strategic.UNESCO has developed eight key competencies for sustainability that are aimed at learners of all ages worldwide. Many versions of these exist, as are linked here*. In the UK, these have been adapted within higher education by AdvanceHE and the QAA with appropriate learning outcomes. The full list of competencies and learning outcome alignment can be found in the Education for Sustainable Development Guidance*. *Click the pink ''Sustainability competency'' text to learn more.
AHEP mapping: This resource addresses two of the themes from the UK’s Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4):The Engineer and Society(acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) andEngineering Practice(the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this resource to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4hereand navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
Related SDGs: SDG 4 (Quality education); SDG 13 (Climate action).
Reimagined Degree Map Intervention: Adapt and repurpose learning outcomes; Authentic assessment; Active pedagogies and mindset development.The Reimagined Degree Map is a guide to help engineering departments navigate the decisions that are urgently required to ensure degrees prepare students for 21st century challenges. Click the pink ''Reimagined Degree Map Intervention'' text to learn more.
Who is this article for? This article should be read by educators at all levels of higher education looking to embed and integrate sustainability into curriculum, module, and / or programme design.
Premise:
The critical role of engineers in developing sustainable solutions to grand societal challenges is undisputable. A wealth of literature and a range of initiatives supporting the embedding of sustainability into engineering curricula already exists. However, a practicing engineering educator responsible for achieving this embedding would be best supported by a practical framework providing a step-by-step guide with example resources for either programme or module/course-level embedding of sustainability into their practice. This practical framework illustrates a tested approach to programme wide as well as module alignment with SDGs, including further resources as well as examples of implementation for each step. This workflow diagram provides a visual illustration of the steps outlined below. The constructive alignment tool found in the Ethics Toolkit may also be adapted to a Sustainability context.
b. Review government targets and discipline-specific guidance.
c. Review accreditation body requirements such as found in AHEP4 and guidance from professional bodies. For example, IChemE highlights the creation of a culture of sustainability, not just a process of embedding the topic.
e. Consider convening focus groups with employers in general and some employers of course alumni in particular. Carefully select attendees to represent a broad range of employers with a range of roles (recruiters, managers, strategy leaders, etc.). Conduct semi-structured focus groups, opening with broad themes identified from steps a through d. Identify any missing knowledge, skills, and competencies specific to particular employers, and prioritize those needed to be delivered by the programme together with the level of competency required (aware, competent, or expert).
2. Look back. The outcome of this phase is a programme map (see appendix) of the SDGs that are currently delivered and highlighting gaps in provision.
b. Conduct a SWOT analysis as a team, considering the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the programme from the perspective of sustainability and relevance/competitiveness.
c. Convene an alumni focus group to identify gaps in current and previous provision, carefully selecting attendees to represent a broad range of possible employment sectors with a range of experiences (fresh graduates to mid-career). Conduct semi-structured discussions opening with broad themes identified from steps 1a-e. Identify any missing knowledge, skills, and competencies specific to particular sectors, and those missing or insufficiently delivered by the programme together with the level of competency required (aware, competent, or expert).
d. Convene a focus group of current students from various stages of the programme. Conduct semi-structured discussions opening with broad themes identified from steps 1a-e and 2a-c. Identify student perceptions of knowledge, skills, and competencies missing from the course in light of the themes identified.
e. Review external examiner feedback, considering any feedback specific to the sustainability content of the programme.
3. Look ahead. The goal of this phase is programme delivery that is aligned with the SDGs and can be evidenced as such.
b. Revise module descriptors so that there are clear linkages to sustainability competencies or the SDGs generally within the aims of the modules.
c. Revise learning outcomes according to which SDGs relate to the module content, projects or activities. The Reimagined Degree Map and the Constructive Alignment Tool for Ethics provides guidance on revising module outcomes. An example that also references AHEP4 ILOS is:
“Apply comprehensive knowledge of mathematics, biology, and engineering principles to solve a complex bioprocess engineering challenge based on critical awareness of new developments in this area. This will be demonstrated by designing solutions appropriate within the health and safety, diversity, inclusion, cultural, societal, environmental, and commercial requirements and codes of practice to minimise adverse impacts (M1, M5, M7).”
e. Create an implementation plan with clear timelines for module descriptor approvals and modification of delivery materials.
For module-wide alignment:
1. Look around. The outcome of this phase is a confirmed approach to embedding sustainability within a particular module or theme.
a. Seek resources available on the SDGs and sustainability teaching in this discipline/theme. For instance, review these examples for Computing, Chemical Engineering and Robotics.
b. Determine any specific guidelines, standards, and regulations for this theme within the discipline.
2. Look back. The outcome of this phase is a module-level map of SDGs currently delivered, highlighting any gaps.
b. Conduct a SWOT analysis as a module team that considers the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the module from the perspective of sustainability and relevance of the module to contribute to programme-level delivery on sustainability and/or the SDGs.
c. Review feedback from current students on the clarity of the modules links to the SDGs.
d. Review feedback from external examiners on the sustainability content of the module.
3. Look ahead.
a. Create introduction slides for the modules that explicitly reference how sustainability topics will be integrated.
b. Embed specific activities involving the SDGs in a given theme, and include students in identifying these. See below for suggestions, and visit the Teaching resources in this toolkit for more options.
Appendix:
A. Outcome I.2 (programme level mapping)
B. Outcome II.5 (module level mapping) – same as above, but instead of the modules in individual lines, themes delivered within the module can be used to make sure the themes are mapped directly to SDGs.
C. II.6.b – Specific activities
Activity 1: Best carried out at the start of the module and then repeated near the end of the module to compare students perception and learning. Split students into groups of 3-4, at the start of the module use the module template (attached as a resource) to clearly outline the ILOs. Then present the SDGs and ask students to spend no more than 5 min identifying the top 3 SDGs they believe the material delivered in the module will enable them to address. Justify the selection. Can either feed back or exchange ideas with the group to their right. Capture these SDGs for comparison of the repeat exercise towards the end of the module. How has the perception of the group changed following the delivery of the module and why?
Activity 2: Variation on the above activity – student groups to arrange the SDGs in a pyramid with the most relevant ones at the top, capture the picture and return to it later in module delivery
Activity 3: Suitable particularly for the earlier stages. Use https://go-goals.org/ to increase the general awareness of SDGs.
Activity 4: The coursework geared to the SDGs, with each student choosing a goal of their choice and developing a webmap to demonstrate the role of module-relevant data and analysis in tackling that goal.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
In developing the resources for the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit, we took into account recent scholarship and best practices and reviewed existing material available on sustainability in engineering. You can find links to these online resources in our ever-growing library of engineering education resources on sustainability below. Please note, the resources linked below are all open-source. If you want to suggest a resource that has helped you, find out how on ourGet Involved page.
To view a page that only lists library links from a specific category type:
Listed below are linksto tools that are designed to support educators’ ability to measure quality and impact of sustainability teaching and learning activities. These have been grouped according to topic. You can also find our suite of assessment tools, here.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: The Sustainability Resources Library was produced by Crystal Nwagboso (Engineering Professors Council). If you want to suggest a resource that has helped you, find out how on our Get Involved page.
In developing the resources for the EPC’s Sustainability Toolkit, we took into account recent scholarship and best practices and reviewed existing material available on sustainability in engineering. You can find links to these online resources in our ever-growing library of engineering education resources on sustainability below. Please note, the resources linked below are all open-source. If you want to suggest a resource that has helped you, find out how on ourGet Involved page.
Listed below are linksto tools that are designed to support educators’ ability to measure quality and impact of sustainability teaching and learning activities. These have been grouped according to topic. You can also find our suite of assessment tools, here.
Click to view our Collaboration resources pagewhere you can find links to groups, networks, and organisations/initiatives that will support educators’ ability to learn with and from others.
Integration tools
Listed below are links to tools designed to support educators’ ability to apply and embed sustainability topics within their engineering teaching. These have been grouped according to topic. You can also find our suite of learning activities and case studies, here.
Listed below are links to resources that support educators’ awareness and understanding of sustainability topics in general as well as their connection to engineering education in particular. These have been grouped according to topic. You can also find our suite of knowledge tools, here.
Engineering Futures – Sustainability in Engineering Webinars (You will need to create an account on the Engineering Futures website. Once you have created your account, navigate back to this link, scroll down to ”Sustainability in Engineering Webinars” and enter your account details. Click on the webinar recordings you wish to access. You will then be redirected to the Crowdcast website, where you will need to create an account to view the recordings.)
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Author: The Sustainability Resources Library was produced by Crystal Nwagboso (Engineering Professors Council). If you want to suggest a resource that has helped you, find out how on our Get Involved page.
Authors: Cortney Holles (Colorado School of Mines); Ekaterina Rzyankina (University of Cape Town).
Topic: Critical digital literacy.
Engineering disciplines: Computer Science; Information Systems; Biomedical engineering.
Ethical issues: Cultural context; Social responsibility; Privacy.
Professional situations: Public health and safety; Working in area of competence; Informed consent.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim: Engaging in ethical judgement: reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.
Learning and teaching notes:
The case involves an engineering student whose personal choices may affect her future professional experience. It highlights both micro- and macro-ethical issues, dealing with the ways that individual actions and decisions can scale to create systemic challenges.
An ethical and responsible engineer should know how to work with and use digital information responsibly. Not all materials available online are free to use or disperse. To be digitally literate, a person must know how to access, evaluate, utilise, manage, analyse, create, and interact using digital resources (Martin, 2008). It is important to guide engineering students in understanding the media landscape and the influence of misleading information on our learning, our political choices, and our careers. A large part of critical digital literacy is evaluating information found on the web. For students working on a research project or an experiment, accessing accurate information is imperative. This case study offers several approaches to engaging students in the critique and improvement of their critical digital literacy skills. The foundations of this lesson can be applied in multiple settings and can be expanded to cover several class periods or simplified to be inserted into a single class.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts. If desired, a teacher can use the Summary and Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in the Summary and Part one to provide for additional learning. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
explore how personal privacy has become increasingly more vulnerable to surveillance and commodification;
discover ways that uploading personal information to social networks means that we will increasingly allow others access to our data;
understand how vulnerable personal information has become to information-aggregation and reselling activities;
evaluate messaging on social media and the news to critique the information they take in and the entities that post it.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
address the definition and importance of expertise;
provide students with practice in evaluating sources of information;
critique students’ approaches to searching, sharing, and comprehending information;
evaluate how students respond to and engage with messaging about science and engineering.
Katherine is a biomedical engineering student in her 3rd year in 2022, and will have a placement in a community hospital during her last term at university. She plans to pursue a career in public health after seeing what her country went through during the Covid-19 pandemic. She wants to contribute to the systems that can prevent and track public health risks from growing too large to manage, as happened with Covid-19. She is motivated by improving systems of research and treatment for emerging diseases and knows that communication between a variety of stakeholders is of the utmost importance.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion:What can you determine about Katherine’s values and motivation for her studies and her choice of career?
2. Discussion: How do you connect with her mission to improve diagnostic and treatment systems for public health threats?
3. Discussion: Who should be responsible for the messaging and processes for public health decisions? How are engineers connected to this system?
4. Activity: Research the Covid-19 vaccine rollout in the United Kingdom versus other countries – how did power, privilege, and politics influence the response?
5. Activity: Research current public health concerns and how they are being communicated to the public. In what ways might engineers affect how and what is communicated?
Dilemma – Part one:
As Katherine approaches the winter holiday season, she makes plans to visit her grandmother across the country. She hasn’t seen her since before the Covid-19 pandemic and is excited to be around her extended family for the holidays once again. However, she receives an email from her cousin informing everyone that he and his family are not vaccinated against Covid-19 because the whole vaccination operation was forced upon citizens and they refused to participate. Katherine is immediately worried for her grandmother – at 85 years old, she is at a higher risk than most – and for her brother, who suffers from Addison’s disease, an autoimmune disorder. Additionally, if Katherine comes into contact with Covid-19 while celebrating the holidays with her family, she could suffer repercussions at both her university and the hospital where she will work for her placement.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: How can Katherine communicate with her cousin about her concerns for her brother and grandmother? How might she use her expertise as a biomedical engineer in this conversation?
2. Discussion: What kind of information will be most convincing to support her decision? What sources would provide the evidence she is looking for, and which ones would provide counter arguments?
3. Discussion: What impacts might the decision have on Katherine’s position as a student or in the hospital?
4. Discussion: Do engineers, scientists, and medical professionals have more of an obligation to promote and adhere to public health guidance? Why or why not?
5. Activity: Talk to people in your life about their experience of navigating the Covid-19 vaccine. Did they choose to get it as soon as it was available? Did they avoid getting the vaccine for particular reasons? Were there impacts on their personal relationships or work because of their choices about the vaccine?
6. Activity: Research some of the impacts on individuals with health concerns and comorbidities in regard to Covid-19 and other viruses or public health concerns. How do these experiences match with or differ from your own?
7. Activity: Investigate the different ways that engineers were involved in vaccination development and response.
Dilemma – Part two:
Katherine went back to university after a lengthy break for the holidays and immediately registered for an account on Facebook as a brand-new user. She was in such a hurry to have her profile up that she did not take the time to configure any privacy settings. She stayed up late reading an article about Covid-19 that had been posted on the website of one of the online newspapers. Before she posted this report on her own Facebook page, she did not verify the accuracy of the information or the source of the information.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What kind of impact might this social media activity have on Katherine’s position as a student or in the company/organisation/hospital she is working for as an intern?What should Katherine be worried or concerned about after posting information?
2. Discussion: Do social media companies collect or ask for any other non-essential information from you? Why does the website claim that they are collecting or asking for your information? Does the website share/sell/trade the information that they collect from you? With whom does the website share your collected information? How long does the website keep your collected information? Does the website delete your information, or simply de-personalise it?
3. Discussion: Regarding question 2, how are engineers involved with products, processes, or services that enable those choices and actions?
4. Discussion: What is real and fake news? How do you know? What do you look for to know if it is real or fake news (share guidelines)? Do you expect it to be easy to spot fake news? Why should we care if people distribute and believe fake news?
Students are particularly susceptible to being duped by propaganda, misleading information, and fake news due to the significant role that information and communication technology which is problematic to verify plays in their everyday life. Students devote a significant portion of their time to participating in various forms of online activity, including watching television, playing online games, chatting, blogging, listening to music, posting photos of themselves on social networking sites, and searching for other individuals with whom they can engage in online conversation. Students owe a significant portion of what they know about the world and how they perceive reality to the content that they read online. While many people share reliable and positive information online, others may engage in negative impact information sharing:
Mis-information – false information shared with no intention of causing harm
Dis-information – false information shared intentionally to cause harm
Mal-information – true information shared intentionally to cause harm.
5. Discussion: What are some other examples of how engineering might fall prey to negative impact information sharing?
6. Discussion: How might engineers help address the problem of fake news and negative impact information sharing?
References:
Martin, A. (2008). ‘Digital Literacy and the “Digital Society”’, in Lankshear C. and Knobel M. (eds.), Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices. New York: Peter Lang, (pp. 151-176).
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr Yujia Zhai (University of Hertfordshire); Associate Professor Scarlett Xiao (University of Hertfordshire).
Professional situations: Rigour; Informed consent; Misuse of data.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim: Gaining ethical knowledge. Knowing the sets of rules, theories, concepts, frameworks, and statements of duty, rights, or obligations that inform ethical attitudes, behaviours, and practices.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study involves an engineer hired to develop and install an Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) online machine monitoring system for a manufacturing company. The developments include designing the infrastructure of hardware and software, writing the operation manuals and setting policies. The project incorporates a variety of ethical components including law and policy, stakeholders, and risk analysis.
This case study addresses three of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): Design and Innovation (significant technical and intellectual challenges commensurate the level of study), the Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools, and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in three parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two and Part three develop and complicate the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case study allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
apply their ethical judgement relating to privacy and consent on the use of machine data;
determine the societal impact of a technical solution to a complex problem;
analyse risks associated with ethical concerns and justify their ethical decisions;
communicate these risks and judgements to both technical and non-technical audiences.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight a range of ethical considerations within the scope of a complex engineering project;
introduce methods for risk analysis and ethical decision-making;
link Engineering Council statements of ethical principles with real world situations;
IIoT is a new technology that can provide accurate condition monitoring and predict component wear rates to optimise machine performance, thereby improving the machining precision of the workpiece and reducing the production cost.
Oxconn is a company that produces auto parts. The robotic manipulators and other automation machines on the production line have been developed at considerable cost and investment, and regular production line maintenance is essential to ensure its effective operation. The current maintenance scheme is based on routine check tests which are not reliable and efficient. Therefore Oxconn has decided to install an IIoT-based machine condition monitoring system. To achieve fast responses to any machine operation issues, the machine condition data collected in real time will be transferred to a cloud server for analysis, decision making, and predictive maintenance in the future.
Dilemma – Part one – Data protection on customers’ machines:
You are a leading engineer who has been hired by Oxconn to take charge of the project on the IIoT-based machine monitoring system, including designing the infrastructure of hardware and software, writing the operation manuals, setting policies, and getting the system up and running. With your background in robotic engineering and automation, you are expected to act as a technical advisor to Oxconn and liaise with the Facilities, Security, Operation, and Maintenance departments to ensure a smooth deployment. This is the first time you have worked on a project that involves real time data collection. So as part of your preparation for the project, you need to do some preliminary research as to what best practices, guidance, and regulations apply.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What are the legal issues relating to machine condition monitoring? Machines’ real-time data allows for the identification of production status in a factory and is therefore considered as commercial data under GDPR and the Data Protection Act (2018). Are there rules specifically for IIoT, or are they the same no matter what technology is being used? Should IIoT regulations differ in any way? Why?
2. Discussion: Sharing data is a legally and ethically complex field. Are there any stakeholders with which the data could be shared? For instance, is it acceptable to share the data with an artificial intelligence research group or with the public? Why, or why not?
3. Discussion: Under GDPR, individuals must normally consent to their personal data being processed. For machine condition data, how should consent be handled in this case?
4. Discussion: What ethical codes relate to data security and privacy in an IIoT scenario?
5. Activity: Undertake a technical activity that relates to how IIoT-based machine monitoring systems are engineered.
6. Discussion: Based on your understanding of how IIoT-based machine monitoring systems are engineered, consider what additional risks, and what kind of risks (such as financial or operational), Oxconn might incur if depending on an entirely cloud-based system. How might these risks be mitigated from a technical and non-technical perspective?
Dilemma – Part two – Computer networks security issue brought by online monitoring systems:
The project has kicked off and a senior manager requests that a user interface (UI) be established specifically for the senior management team (SMT). Through this UI, the SMT members can have access to all the real-time data via their computers or mobiles and obtain the analysis result provided by artificial intelligence technology. You realise this has implications on the risk of accessing internal operating systems via the external information interface and networks. So as part of your preparation for the project, you need to investigate what platforms can be used and what risk analysis must be taken in implementation.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
The following activities focus on macro-ethics. They address the wider ethical contexts of projects like the industrial data acquisition system.
1. Activity: Explore different manufacturers and their approaches to safety for both machines and operators.
2. Activity: Technical integration – Undertake a technical activity related to automation engineering and information engineering.
3. Activity: Research what happens with the data collected by IIoT. Who can access this data and how can the data analysis module manipulate the data?
4. Activity: Develop a risk management register, taking considerations of the findings from Activity 3 as well as the aspect of putting in place data security protocols and relevant training for SMT.
5. Discussion/activity: Use information in the Ethical Risk Assessment guide to help students consider how ethical issues are related to the risks they have just identified.
6. Discussion: In addition to cost-benefit analysis, how can the ethical factors be considered in designing the data analysis module?
7. Activity: Debate the appropriateness of installing and using the system for the SMT.
8. Discussion: What responsibilities do engineers have in developing these technologies?
Dilemma – Part three – Security breach and legal responsibility:
At the beginning of operation, the IIoT system with AI algorithms improved the efficiency of production lines by updating the parameters in robot operation and product recipes automatically. Recently, however, the efficiency degradation was observed, and after investigation, there were suspicions that the rules/data in AI algorithms have been subtly changed. Developers, contractors, operators, technicians and managers were all brought in to find out what’s going on.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: If there has been an illegal hack of the system, what might be the motive of cyber criminals?
2. Discussion: What are the impacts on company business? How could the impact of cyber-attacks on businesses be minimised?
3. Discussion: How could threats that come from internal employees, vendors, contractors or partners be prevented?
4. Discussion: When a security breach happens, what are the legal responsibilities for developers, contractors, operators, technicians and managers?
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Topic: Balancing personal values and professional conduct in the climate emergency.
Engineering disciplines: Civil engineering; Energy and Environmental engineering; Energy.
Ethical issues:Respect for the environment; Justice; Accountability; Social responsibility; Risk; Sustainability; Health; Public good; Respect for the law; Future generations; Societal impact.
Professional situations:Public health and safety; Communication; Law / Policy; Integrity; Legal implications; Personal/professional reputation.
Educational level: Intermediate.
Educational aim:Practicing Ethical Reasoning: the application of critical analysis to specific events in order to evaluate and respond to problems in a fair and responsible way.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study involves an engineer who has to weigh personal values against professional codes of conduct when acting in the wake of the climate crisis. This case study allows students to explore motivations and justifications for courses of action that could be considered morally right but legally wrong.
This case study addresses two of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in three parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Parts two and three develop and complicate the concepts presented in Part one to provide for additional learning. The case study allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and/or activities, as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
identify underlying values of professional situations;
practise developing, defending, and delivering arguments;
debate the potential options of an ethical decision;
make and justify an ethical decision;
identify and define positions on an ethical issue;
apply codes of ethics to an engineering ethics dilemma;
consider different perspectives on an ethical issue and what values inform those perspectives;
practise professional communication related to ethical dilemmas;
identify professional responsibilities of engineers in an ethical dilemma;
determine and defend a course of action in response to an ethical dilemma;
consider how they would act in an ethical situation.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
evaluate critical thinking, argumentation, and communication skills;
highlight professional codes of ethics and their relevance to an engineering situation;
Kelechi is a civil engineer in a stable job, working on the infrastructure team of a County Council that focuses on regeneration and public realm improvements. Kelechi grew up in an environment where climate change and its real impacts on people was discussed frequently. She was raised with the belief that she should live as ethically as possible, and encourage others to consider their impact on the world. These beliefs were instrumental in leading Kelechi into a career as a civil engineer, in the hope that she could use her skills and training to create a better world. In one of her engineering modules at university, Kelechi met Amanda, who encouraged her to join a student group pushing for sustainability within education and the workplace. Kelechi has had some success with this within her own job, as her employer has been willing to participate in ongoing discussions on carbon and resilience, and is open to implementing creative solutions.
But Kelechi is becoming frustrated at the lack of larger scale change in the wake of the climate emergency. Over the years she has signed petitions and written to her representatives, then watched in dismay as each campaign failed to deliver real world carbon reduction, and as the government continued to issue new licenses for fossil fuel projects. Even her own employers have failed to engage with climate advocates pushing for further changes in local policy, changes that Kelechi believes are both achievable and necessary. Kelechi wonders what else she can do to set the UK – if not the world – on a path to net zero.
Dilemma – Part one:
Scrolling through a news website, Kelechi is surprised to see a photo of her friend and ex-colleague Amanda, in a report about climate protesters being arrested. Kelechi messages Amanda to check that she’s ok, and they get into a conversation about the protests. Amanda is part of a climate protest group of STEM professionals that engages in non-violent civil disobedience. The group believes that by staging direct action protests they can raise awareness of the climate emergency and ultimately effect systemic change.
Amanda tries to convince Kelechi to join the group and protest with them. Amanda references the second principle of the Statement of Ethical Principles published by the Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering: “Respect for life, law, the environment and public good.” Amanda believes that it is ok to ignore the tenet about respect for the law in an effort to safeguard the other three, and says that there have been plenty of unjust laws throughout history that have needed to be protested in order for them to be changed for the public good. She also references another part of the Statement: that engineers should ”maximise the public good and minimise both actual and potential adverse effects for their own and succeeding generations”. Amanda believes that by protesting she is actually fulfilling her duty to uphold these principles.
Kelechi isn’t sure. She has never knowingly broken the law before, and is worried about being arrested. Kelechi consults her friend Max, who is a director of a professional engineering institution, of which Kelechi is a member. Max, whilst she has some sympathies for the aims of the group, immediately warns Kelechi away from the protests. “Forget about being arrested; you could lose your job and end your career.”
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What personal values will Kelechi have to weigh in order to decide whether or not to take part in a civil disobedience protest?
2. Discussion: Consider the tenet of the Statement of Ethical Principles “Respect for life, law, the environment and public good.” To what extent (if at all) do the four tenets of this ethical principle come into conflict with one another in this situation? Can you think of other professional situations in which they might conflict?
3. Discussion: Is breaking the law always unethical? Are there circumstances when breaking the law might be the ethical thing to do in the context of engineering practice? What might these circumstances be?
4. Discussion: To what extent (if at all) does the content of the Statement of Ethical Principles make a case for or against being part of a protest where the law is broken?
5. Discussion: Following on from the previous question – does it make a difference what is being protested, if a law is broken? For example, is protesting fossil fuels that lead to climate change different from protesting unsafe but legal building practices, such as cladding that causes a fire risk? Why?
6. Activity: Research other professional codes of engineering: do these have clear guidelines for this situation? Assemble a bibliography of other professional codes or standards that might be relevant to this scenario.
7. Discussion: What are the potential personal and professional risks or benefits for Kelechi if she takes part in a protest where the law is broken?
8. Discussion: From a professional viewpoint, should Kelechi take part in the protest? What about from a personal viewpoint?
Dilemma – Part two:
After much deliberation, Kelechi decides to join the STEM protest group. Her first protest is part of a direct action to blockade a busy London bridge. To her own surprise, she finds herself volunteering to be one of two protesters who will climb the cables of the bridge. She is reassured by the risk assessment undertaken by the group before selecting her. She has climbing experience (although only from her local leisure centre), and safety equipment is provided.
On the day of the protest, Kelechi scales the bridge. The police are called and the press arrive. Kelechi stays suspended from the bridge for 36 hours, during which time all traffic waiting to cross the bridge is halted or diverted. Eventually, Kelechi is convinced that she should climb down, and the police arrest all of the protesters.
Later on, Kelechi is contacted by members of the press, asking for a statement about her reason for taking part in the protest. Kelechi has seen that press coverage of the protest is so far overwhelmingly negative, and poll results suggest that the majority of the public see the protesters’ actions as selfish, inconvenient, and potentially dangerous, although some have sympathy for their cause. “What if someone died because an ambulance couldn’t use the bridge?” asks someone via social media. “What about the five million deaths a year already caused by climate change?” asks another, citing a recent news article.
Kelechi would like to take the opportunity to make her voice heard – after all, that’s why she joined the protest group – but she isn’t sure whether she should mention her profession. Would it add credibility to her views? Or would she be lambasted because of it?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What professional principles or codes is Kelechi breaking or upholding by scaling the bridge?
2. Activity: Compare the professional and ethical codes for civil engineers in the UK and elsewhere. How might they differ in their guidance for an engineer in this situation?
3. Activity: Conduct a risk assessment for a) the protesters who have chosen to be part of this scenario, and b) members of the public who are incidentally part of this scenario.
4. Discussion: Who would be responsible if, as a direct or indirect result of the protesters blocking the bridge, a) a member of the public died, or b) a protester died? Who is responsible for the excess deaths caused directly or indirectly by climate change?
5. Discussion: How can Kelechi best convey to the press and public the quantitative difference between the short-term disruption caused by protests and the long-term disruption caused by climate change?
6. Discussion: Should Kelechi give a statement to the press? If so, should she discuss her profession? What would you do in her situation?
7. Activity: Write a statement for Kelechi to release to the press.
8. Discussion: Suggest alternative ways of protesting that would have as much impact in the news but potentially cause less disruption to the public.
Dilemma – Part three:
Kelechi decides to speak to the press. She talks about the STEM protest group, and she specifically cites the Statement of Ethical Principles as her reason for taking part in the protest: “As a professional civil engineer, I have committed to acting within our code of ethics, which requires that I have respect for life, the environment and public good. I will not just watch lives be destroyed if I can make a difference with my actions.”
Whilst her statement gets lots of press coverage, Kelechi is called out by the media and the public because of her profession. The professional engineering institution of which Kelechi is a member receives several complaints about her actions, some from members of the public and some from other members of the institution. “She’s bringing the civil engineering profession into disrepute,” says one complaint.“She’s endangering the public,” says another.
It’s clear that the institution must issue a press release on the situation, and it falls to Kelechi’s friend Max, as a director of the institution, to decide what kind of statement to put out, and to recommend whether Kelechi’s membership of the institution could – or should – be revoked. Max looks closely at the institution’s Code of Professional Conduct. One part of the Code says that “Members should do nothing that in any way could diminish the high standing of the profession. This includes any aspect of a member’s personal conduct which could have a negative impact upon the profession.” Another part of the Code says: “All members shall have full regard for the public interest, particularly in relation to matters of health and safety, and in relation to the well-being of future generations.”
As well as the institution’s Code of Conduct, Max considers the historic impact of civil resistance in achieving change, and how those engaging in such protests – such as the suffragettes in the early 1900s – could be viewed negatively at the time, whilst later being lauded for their efforts. Max wonders at what point the tide of public opinion begins to turn, and what causes this change. She knows that she has to consider the potential impacts of the statement that she puts out in the press release; how it might affect not just her friend, but the institution’s members, other potential protesters, and also her own career.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Historically, has civil resistance been instrumental or incidental in achieving systemic change? Research to find out if and when engineers have been involved in civil resistance in the past.
2. Discussion: Could Kelechi’s actions, and the results of her actions, be interpreted as having “a negative impact on the profession”?
3. Discussion: Looking at Kelechi’s actions, and the institution’s code of conduct, should Max recommend that Kelechi’s membership be revoked?
4. Discussion: Which parts of the quoted code of conduct could Max emphasise or omit in her press release, and how might this affect the tone of her statement and how it could be interpreted?
5. Activity: Debate which position Max should take in her press release: condemning the actions of the protesters as being against the institution’s code of conduct; condoning the actions as being within the code of conduct; remaining as neutral as possible in her statement.
6. Discussion: What are the wider impacts of Max’s decision to either remain neutral, or to stand with or against Kelechi in her actions?
7. Activity: Write a press release for the institution, taking one of the above positions.
8. Discussion: Which other authorities or professional bodies might be impacted by Max’s decision?
9. Discussion: What are the potential impacts of Max’s press release on the following stakeholders, and what decisions or actions might they take because of it? Kelechi; Kelechi’s employer; members of the STEM protest group; the institution; institution members; government policymakers; the media; the public; the police; fossil fuel businesses; Max’s employers; Max herself.
Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Engineering Professors’ Council or the Toolkit sponsors and supporters.
Authors: Dr. Kieran Higgins(Ulster University); Dr. Alison Calvert (Queen’s University Belfast).
Authors: Cortney Holles (Colorado School of Mines); Ekaterina Rzyankina (University of Cape Town).