Activity: Do engineers have a responsibility to warn the public if there is a chance of risk?
Author: Cortney Holles (Colorado School of Mines, USA).
Overview:
This enhancement is for an activity found in the Dilemma Part two, Point 1 section of this case: Debate whether or not Krystyna has an ethical or professional responsibility to warn relevant parties (“of matters . . . which are of potential detriment to others who may be adversely affected by them” – The Society of Construction Law’s Statement of Ethical Principles).
After introducing or studying the Glass Safety case, teachers may want students to dig deeper into the ethical issues in the case through a debate. The resources and lesson plan below guide teachers through this lesson.
1. Introduce the debate assignment:
Students will debate whether or not Krystyna has an ethical or professional responsibility to warn relevant parties. Build in some time for students to prepare their arguments in small groups (either during class or as a homework assignment). Create small groups of 2-5 students that can develop positions on each of the following positions on the question of the debate:
Does Krystyna have a responsibility to warn Sir Robert or future residents of the buildings about the glass?
YES, according to the Society of Construction Laws (or other professional society’s) ethical codes or standards;
YES, according to a personal and ethical obligation of Krystyna as a young professional;
NO, according to the standards of the company and expectations by superiors and/or professional norms or standards;
NO, according to personal or ethical obligations and needs of Krystyna as a young professional.
2. Supporting the arguments in the debate with texts:
Provide students with resources that offer support for the different positions in the debate, listed below. Perhaps you have assigned readings in the class they can be asked to reference for support in the debate. Teachers could also assign students to conduct independent research on these stakeholders and positions if that matches the goals of the class.
In a previous class session or at the start of the debate, ask students to record or anonymously report their personal response to the debate question for comparison and discussion after the debate. These responses could serve as a basis for personal reflection, a progress check, or even as a component of an assessment. You could ask them to report on this question in several different ways: Do engineers have a responsibility to warn? When do engineers have a responsibility to warn? Why do engineers have a responsibility to warn? Who do engineers have a responsibility to warn?
Give students time to talk in their groups before the in-class debate begins so that they can compare notes on their argument and evidence/reasoning, and decide who will speak. You may want to direct how students in the groups will divide the speaking responsibilities for their position, especially for time management or participation according to the limitations or requirements of your teaching situation.
Consider what amount of time you have for the debate and provide students with a structure with time limits for each argument and response. For example, let each of the four positions present their case for 2-3 minutes, followed by a minute for each other position to offer rebuttals and ask questions of that position.
Teachers could also give themselves a minute or two to ask questions or offer insights or ethical issues the groups may have missed in between. At the least, the teacher should monitor the time, provide transitions between positions, and moderate the debate.
As a comprehension and application activity during the debate, you could ask students to take notes on the other positions’ presentations as they listen – you might ask them to restate the positions, identify the underlying values presented, or describe which ethical issues or stakeholders they find most compelling for each position. This could also be done via a “live blog”, or via a role play scenario where other students act as journalists reporting on what is happening in the debate.
After all sides have been presented, allow time for students to revisit their original positions on the debate. They could cast their votes on a web platform anonymously or you can collect paper ballots. In class or as homework, students could reflect on what arguments and values impacted their personal stance on the debate.
Take time to debrief the positions and the ethical decisions presented at the end of this class session or in a subsequent class session. Teachers could ask students to discuss how they navigated conflicting values and needs of stakeholders and which ethical principles were most compelling to them.
Key concepts this debate can cover:
environmental ethics concepts
power dynamics between managers, clients, and engineers
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: Defending a profit-driven business versus a non-profit-driven business.
Author: Dr Sandhya Moise (University of Bath).
Overview:
This enhancement is for an activity found in the Dilemma Part one, Point 4 section of the case: “In a group, split into two sides with one side defending a profit-driven business and the other defending a non-profit driven business. Use Maria’s case in defending your position.” Below are several prompts for discussion questions and activities that can be used. These correspond with the stopping points outlined in the case. Each prompt could take up as little or as much time as the educator wishes, depending on where they want the focus of the discussion to be.
Session structure:
1. As pre-class work, the students can be provided the case study in written format.
2. During class, the students will need to be introduced to the following concepts, for which resources are provided below (~20 min):
An introduction to Ethics in Engineering
Professional Code of Ethics and their relevance to engineering situations
Refers to strategies that a company develops and executes as part of its corporate governance to ensure the company’s operations are ethical and beneficial for society.
Can be categorised as Environmental, Human rights, Philanthropic and Economic responsibility.
Also benefits the organisation by strengthening their brand image and reputation, thereby increasing sales and customer loyalty, access to funding and reduced regulatory burden.
ESG Mandate Resources:
In recent years, there have been calls for more corporate responsibility in environmental and socioeconomic ecosystems globally. For example:
In 2006, the ESG mandate was set up by a group of investors to create a more sustainable financial system for companies to operate in, and to use as part of their annual reporting of performance indicators.
In 2017, the economist Kate Raworth set out to reframe GDP growth to a different indicator system that reflects on social and environmental impact. A Moment for Change?
Split the class into two or more groups. One half of the class is assigned as Group 1 and the other, Group 2. Ask students to use Maria’s case in defending their position.
Background on Maria: CTO; lead inventor; electrical and electronics engineer; lives in the UK; hails from a lower socioeconomic background (UK); dislikes perpetuating economic disparity.
Technology developed: Devices that detect water leaks early, lowering the risk of damage to infrastructure that impacts local communities; also saves corporations millions each year by detecting low-level water loss that currently remains undetected.
Hydrospector’s Business goal: Secure contracts for their new business; find customers.
Group activity 1:
Group 1: Defend a profit-driven business model – Aims at catalysing the company’s market and profits by working with big corporations as this will enable quicker adoption of technology as well as economically benefit surrounding industries and society.
Group 2: Defend a non-profit driven business – Aims at preventing the widening of the socioeconomic gap by working with poorly-funded local authorities to help ensure their product gets to the places most in need (opportunities present in Joburg).
Ask the students to consider discussing Maria’s personal values which might be causing the internal conflict.
Should she involve her personal experiences/values in a business decision making process? If Maria was from an affluent area/background, how may this have affected her perspective?
Ask the students to assess how the Professional Bodies’ Codes of Conduct are applicable to this scenario and how would they inform the decision making process.
Ask the students to consider the wider impact of the business decision (beyond the business itself) and if focusing on profit alone is morally inferior to prioritising ESG.
Pros and Cons of each approach:
Group 1: Defend a profit-driven business model:
Advantages and ethical impact:
Will improve the company’s market and profits; quicker adoption of technology which will benefit employees, open up more job opportunities and benefit local society and industries.
Disadvantage and ethical impacts:
Will benefit those in affluent areas without helping those in disadvantaged socioeconomic regions, thereby exacerbating societal inequalities.
Does not align with ESG mandate of operating as a more sustainable business.
Group 2: Defend a non-profit driven business:
Advantages and ethical impact:
Aligns strongly with Maria’s personal values, so could potentially affect her future loyalty and performance within the company.
Abides by Professional Bodies Codes of Conduct.
Disadvantage and ethical impacts:
Maria’s personal values, without sufficient evidence to show that they will also improve the business, might cause conflict later regarding her leadership approach. Would she have behaved differently had she been from an affluent background and unaware of the impact of societal inequalities?
Could lead to failure of the company due to reduced profits, and lack of adoption of technology, which in turn will affect the organisation’s employees.
Relevant ethical codes of conduct examples:
Royal Academy’s Statement of Ethical Principles:
“Engineering professionals work to enhance the wellbeing of society.”
“Leadership and communication: Engineering professionals have a duty to abide by and promote equality, diversity and inclusion.”
Both of the above statements can be interpreted to mean that engineers have a professional duty to not propagate social inequalities through their technologies/innovations.
Discussion and summary:
This case study involves very important questions of profit vs values. Which is a more ethical approach both at first sight and beyond? Both approaches have their own set of advantages and disadvantages both in terms of their business and ethical implications.
If Maria decides to follow a profit-driven approach, she goes against her personal values and beliefs that might cause internal conflict, as well as propagate societal inequalities.
However, a profit-driven model will expand the company’s business, and improve job opportunities in the neighbourhood, which in turn would help the local community. There is also the possibility to establish the new business and subsequently/slowly initiate CSR activities on working with local authorities in Joburg to directly benefit those most in need. However, this would be a delayed measure and there is a possible risk that the CSR plans never unfold.
If Maria decides to follow a non-profit-driven approach, it aligns with her personal values and she might be very proactive in delivering it and taking the company forward. The technology would benefit those in most need. It might improve the reputation of the company and increase loyalty of its employees who align with these values. However, it might have an impact on the company’s profits and slow its growth. This in turn would affect the livelihood of those employed within the company (e.g. job security) and risks.
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.
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 into module design and learning activities. It describes an in-class activity that is appropriate for large sections and can help to provide students with opportunities to practise the communication and critical thinking skills that employers are looking for.
Premise:
Encouraging students to engage with the ethical, moral and environmental aspects of engineering in any meaningful way can be a challenge, especially in very large cohorts. In the Mechanical Engineering department at the University of Bath we have developed a debate activity which appears to work very well, minimising the amount of assessment, maximising feedback and engagement, and exposing the students to a wide range of topics and views.
In our case, the debate comes after a very intensive second year design unit and it is couched as a slightly “lighter touch” assignment, ahead of the main summer assessment period. The debate format targets the deeper learning of Bloom’s taxonomy and is the logical point in our programme to challenge students to develop these critical thinking skills.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.” New York: David McKay Co Inc.
This activity addresses two of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) fourth edition: 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 to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The debate format:
Several weeks prior to the unit starting, academic staff are asked to submit ideas for technical engineering conundrums as topics for debate; the topics need to be current and include ethical, moral, environmental and technical feasibility aspects.
The cohort is divided into randomly formed groups (aiming for six members in each). An even number of groups is essential (half being pro vs half being anti).
Each pair of groups is assigned a debate topic, with odd numbered groups arguing in favour of the statement, even numbered groups arguing against.
Each group then spends a couple of weeks researching the topic (we weave this in around Easter so the precise timings vary). Studio/tutorial sessions are used by the groups to (a) clarify the scope and intent of the question posed, (b) try out their arguments, and (c) obtain differing perspectives from academic support staff.
We provide supporting lectures covering environmental considerations and commercial imperatives; there is scope to include ethical issues within this.
On debate day the cohort is further divided so that we can run four concurrent debate sessions and keep the timings reasonable.
Each debate room is set up with the two teams in a “v” formation facing each-other and the audience. The typical timings of a debate session are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Timings for technical feasibility debate. There is plenty of scope to alter these timings
and allow a healthy debate from the floor and further exploration of the key arguments.
The audience is asked to vote (using a QR code unique to each session) and the winning team is declared. The votes are revealed in real time and are displayed, adding an element of theatre.
There are no marks on the debate at this stage; attendance is notionally compulsory but in fact we have near full attendance. In any event, the sense of anticipation, duty to one’s team and a desire to eavesdrop on colleagues’ debate tactics (arguments) drives the activity. Staff from across the department are invited to attend those sessions related to their interests and research; they often chime in with questions from the floor and provide an interesting perspective for the students to take into the final deliverable – a six-minute video presentation of their argument.
The videos are marked by a panel of three academics (a number greater than three and there tends to be an inevitable dilution of marks at the extreme ends of the spectrum).
Following marking, the videos are made available to the rest of the cohort (in our case, hosted on Panopto) so that they can further engage in topics of their choosing and understand why they were allocated the mark they were.
Some key points to bear in mind:
The students do not get the opportunity to choose a topic or indeed which side of the argument they are required to argue. This is presented to the students by asking them to imagine they were a defence counsel at court, having to defend a notorious criminal; in order to ensure the safety of the conviction they would have to acquaint themselves with every weakness, every potential flaw in the prosecution’s case and to anticipate the “killer questions”. Take for example a team of engineering undergraduates who are all keen F1 enthusiasts and are placed in a position of having to take the negative position and argue against F1 as a sport (the actual debate topic is shown below).
The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies.
For clarity, the term “Affirmative” means they are arguing for the proposal, “Negative” implies they are arguing against the proposal. The Negative argument includes the bracketed word in all cases.
Equally the team given the “affirmative” position to argue in favour of the sport, needs to be certain of their arguments and to fully research and anticipate any potential killer questions from their opponents.
It will be seen that this challenges the students and indeed the audience (staff included) to confront some uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, exposing those present to the deeper research undertaken by the students in preparation for the debate as well as to the broader contexts of engineering and its macroethical implications.
Asking for a video submission a few days after the debate forces the students to assimilate the counter arguments and update or revise their presentation and indeed potentially their entire approach.
The first time this debate format was trialled was as an entirely online (remote) activity (forced upon us by the pandemic). Thanks to the sterling work on the requisite IT/AV side by colleagues (acknowledged below) it worked very well in this format and was universally acclaimed as a success by staff and students alike (receiving positive feedback and high unit evaluation scores). In this format it was a gruelling three and a half hour exercise, but it allowed students, who had hitherto been isolated from their wider cohort, to engage in the banter and atmosphere from afar. There was an element of student voting in this first iteration of this exercise and a real sense of healthy competition and energy.
Discussion points for improvements:
The use of microphones in front of each team and for the session chair/MC would improve engagement from the entire audience.
An element of peer marking might heighten engagement further but might also be problematic with students influencing the actual unit marks of their peers.
Directly linking academic research and teaching material to the topics for debate might encourage a more engaged and critical cohort in later units and might also potentially send the students out on placement better prepared and more aware.
We felt that our experience with what has become known as the Technical Feasibility Debate was worth sharing with the wider higher education community, and hope that readers will learn from our experience and implement their own version.
Acknowledgements:
Dr Joseph Flynn – unit convener and co-originator of the debate format.
Dr Ed Elias – for his excellent lecture providing the students with some insight into the commercial imperatives impacting their arguments.
Dr Rick Lupton – for his excellent lecture and supporting material giving the students an environmental and lifecycle analysis perspective to their arguments.
Dr Nathan Sell – for his technical, IT and AV contribution (including the voting system) which made the new format possible.
Dr Elies Dekoninck – as head of the design group in Bath for her encouragement and support in trialling these new approaches.
Appendices:
Typical list of debate topics:
Gas turbines are (not) a dying technology for aircraft propulsion.
Cumbrian super coal mine: there is (no) justification for accessing these fossil fuel reserves.
Metal additive manufacturing, 3D Printing, is (not) a sustainable technology.
Mining the Moon/asteroids for minerals, helium, etc. should (not) be permitted.
Electrification of lorries via hydrogen fuel cell technology is (not) preferable to changing the road infrastructure to include overhead power lines (or similar).
Electrification of road vehicles is (not) preferable to using cleaner fuel alternatives in internal combustion engine cars.
The use of single use plastic packaging is (not) defensible when weighed up against increases in food waste.
The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies.
Solar technologies should (not) take a larger share of future UK investment compared to wind technologies.
Tidal turbines will (never) produce more than 10% of the UK’s power.
Wave energy converters are (never) going to be viable as a clean energy resource.
Commercial sailing vessels should (not) be used to transport non-perishable goods around the globe.
We should (not) trust algorithms over humans in safety-critical settings, for example autonomous vehicles.
Inventing and manufacturing new technologies is (not) more likely to help us address the climate emergency than reverting to less technologically and energy intense practices
Mechanical Engineering will (not) one day be conducted entirely within the Metaverse, or similar.
The financial contribution and scientific effort directed towards fundamental physics research, for example particle accelerators, is (not) justified with regard to the practical challenges humanity currently faces.
A total individual annual carbon footprint quota would (not) be the best way to reduce our carbon emissions.
The UK power grid will (not) be overwhelmed by the shift to electrification in the next decade.
We are (not) more innovative than we were in the past – breakthrough innovations are (not) still being made.
Lean manufacturing and supply chains have (not) been exposed during the pandemic.
Marking rubric:
Criteria
5
4
3
2
1
1. Organisation and Clarity:
Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way.
Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.
Completely clear and orderly presentation.
Mostly clear and orderly in all parts.
Clear in some parts but not overall.
Unclear and disorganised throughout.
2. Use of Argument:
Reasons are given to support the resolution.
Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.
Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout.
Many good arguments given, with only minor problems.
Some decent arguments, but some significant problems.
Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems.
3. Presentation Style:
Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. Neatly presented and engaging slides, making use of images and multimedia content.
Exceeds expectations with no suggestions for improvement.
All style features were used convincingly.
Most style features were used convincingly.
Few style features were used convincingly.
Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly.
References:
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
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: Matthew Studley (UWE Bristol); Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).
Keywords: Pedagogy; Personal ethics; Risk.
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 into module design and learning activities. It describes techniques that can help to provide students with opportunities to practise the communication and critical thinking skills that employers are looking for.
Premise:
Discussing ethical issues can be a daunting prospect, whether one-to-one or with an entire classroom. Ethics often addresses topics and decisions related to moral choices and delicate situations about which people may have firm and long-held beliefs. Additionally, these issues are often rooted in underlying values which may differ between people, cultures, or even time periods. For instance, something that was considered immoral or unethical in a rural community in 18th-century Ireland may have been viewed very differently at the same time in urban India. Because students come from different backgrounds and experiences, it is essential to be sensitive to this context (Kirk and Flammia, 2016). However, ethics also requires that we address tough topics in order to make decisions about what we should do in difficult situations, such as those encountered by engineers in their personal, professional, and civic lives.
Why we need to be sensitive in discussions about ethics:
Discussions about tough topics can be ‘triggering’. Psychologists define a psychological ‘trigger’ as a stimulus that causes a painful memory to resurface. A trigger can be any reminder of the traumatic event: a sound, sight, smell, physical sensation, words, or images. When a person is triggered, they’re being provoked by a stimulus that awakens or worsens the symptoms of a traumatic event or mental health condition (Gerdes, 2019). A person’s strong reaction to being triggered may come as a surprise to others because the response seems out of proportion to the stimulus, because the triggered individual is mentally reliving the original trauma. Some neurodivergencies can adapt these responses. For example, people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may experience stronger emotional reactions and may present this in ways which are unfamiliar or surprising to those who have not experienced the same challenges (Fuld, 2018).
Apart from triggering memories, the topics of right and wrong may be emotive. Young people are often passionate in their beliefs and may be moved to strong responses. There is nothing wrong with that, unless one person’s strong response makes another’s participation and expression less likely.
Ethics is only salient if the topics are tough:
Ethics concerns questions of moral value, of right and wrong, and relates to our deep-held beliefs and emotions. If any experience in an engineer’s education is likely to cause unpleasant memories to surface, or to stimulate strong discussion, it’s likely to be Ethics, and some of our students may have an emotional response to the topics of discussion and their impacts. This might be enough to make many educators shy away from integrating ethics.
However, research has shown that most engineers are moved by their personal sense of moral value, rather than by abstract external standards, and this can create very powerful and impactful learning experiences (Génova and González, 2016). To teach Ethics, we need to be willing to engage emotionally. Students also appreciate when educators can be vulnerable in the same way that we ask them to be, which means being willing to be honest about our own reactions to tough topics.
Approaches to tackling tough topics:
a. Prepare by reviewing resources
Several resources exist to guide educators who are engaging with tough topics in the classroom. Teaching and learning specialists recognise the challenges inherent in engaging with this kind of activity, yet also want to support educators who see the value in creating a space for students to wrestle with the difficult questions that they will encounter in the future. Many centres of teaching and learning at universities provide strategies and guidance through websites or pamphlets that are easily found by searching online. We include a list of some of our preferred resources below.
b. Prepare by finding local support
Even though we will avoid obvious triggers, there’s always the possibility that our students may become upset. We should be prepared by promoting the contact details for local support services within the institution. It can never be a bad thing for our students to know about these.
c. Give warnings and ask for consent
You might want to warn your students that discussing ethical matters is not without emotional consequence. At your discretion, seek their explicit consent to continue. There has been some criticism of this approach in the media, as some authors suggest that this infantilises the audience. Indeed, the pros and cons of trigger warnings might make an interesting topic for discussion: life can be cruel, is there value in developing a thick skin? What do we lose in this process? Being honest about your own hesitations and internal conflicts might encourage students to open up about how they wrestle with their own dilemmas. To be fully supportive, consider an advanced warning with the option to opt-out so that people aren’t stampeded into something they might prefer to avoid.
d. Recognise discomfort, and respond
Be aware of the possibility that individuals in your group could become upset. Be prepared to quietly offer time out or to change the activity in response to where the students want to take the discussion. Again, being transparent with the students that some people may be uncomfortable or upset by topics can reveal another relevant ethical topic – how to be respectful of others whose response differs from your own. And being willing to change the activity demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability required of 21st century engineers!
e. Avoid unnecessary risk
Some topics are best avoided due to the strength of emotion which they might trigger in students whose life story may be unknown to us. These topics include sexual abuse, self-harm, violence, eating disorders, homophobia, transphobia, racism, child abuse and paedophilia, and rape.
Be kind, and be brave:
Above all, let your students know that you care for their well-being. If we are to teach Ethics, let us be ethical. You might need to overcome some awkward moments with your students, but you will all learn and grow in the process!
References:
Fuld S. (2018) ‘Autism spectrum disorder: The Impact of stressful and traumatic life events and implications for clinical practice.’ Clinical Social Work Journal 46(3), pp. 210-219.
Génova, G., and González, M.R. (2016) ‘Teaching ethics to engineers: A Socratic experience,’ Science and Engineering Ethics 22, pp. 567–580.
Gerdes, K. (2019) ‘Trauma, trigger warnings, and the rhetoric of sensitivity,’ Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 3-24.
Kirk S. A. and Flammia, M. (2016) ‘Teaching the ethics of intercultural communication,’ in Teaching and Training for Global Engineering: Perspectives on Culture and Professional Communication Practices, pp.91-124.
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 Sarah Jayne Hitt (NMITE); Dr Matthew Studley (University of the West of England, Bristol); Dr Darian Meacham (Maastricht University); Dr Nik Whitehead (University of Wales Trinity Saint David); Professor Mike Bramhall (TEDI-London); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Educational aim: To develop ethical awareness. Ethical awareness is when an individual determines that a single situation has moral implications and can be considered from an ethical point of view.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case concerns a construction engineer navigating multiple demands. The engineer must evaluate trade-offs between technical specifications, historical preservation, financial limitations, social needs, and safety. Some of these issues have obvious ethical dimensions, while others are ethically more ambiguous. In addition, the engineer must navigate a professional scenario in which different stakeholders try to influence the resolution of the dilemma.
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 the AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP4here 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 Part one in isolation, but Part two develops and complicates the concepts presented in 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:
determine if an engineering situation has ethical dimensions and identify what these are;
identify where tensions might arise between professionals;
practise stakeholder mapping;
debate possible solutions to an ethical dilemma.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight professional codes of ethics and their relevance to engineering situations;
address approaches to resolve interpersonal and / or professional conflict;
integrate technical content on glass – such as strength, failure, and manufacture;
integrate construction industry codes and / or specifications;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Krystyna is a construction engineer working as part of a team that is retrofitting a Victorian-era factory into multi-unit housing. As an amateur history buff, she is excited to be working on a listed building for the first time in her career after finishing university three years ago. However, this poses additional challenges: she must write the specification for glass windows that will maintain the building’s heritage status but also conform to 21st century safety standards and requirements for energy efficiency. In addition, Krystyna feels under pressure because Sir Robert, the developer of the property, is keen to maximise profits while maintaining the historic feel valued by potential buyers. He also wants to get the property on the housing market as soon as possible to help mitigate a housing shortage in the area. This is the first of many properties that Dave, the project’s contractor who is well-regarded locally and has 30 years of experience working in the community, will be building for Sir Robert. This is the first time that Krystyna has worked with Dave.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What competing values or motivations might conflict in this scenario?
2. Discussion: What codes, standards and authority bodies might be relevant to this scenario?
3. Activity: Assemble a bibliography of relevant professional codes, standards, and authorities.
4. Activity: Undertake a technical project relating to testing glass for fire safety and / or energy efficiency.
5. Activity: Research the use of glass as a building material throughout history and / or engineering innovations in glass production.
Dilemma – Part one:
On her first walk through the property with Dave, Krystyna discovers that the factory building has large floor-to-ceiling windows on the upper stories. Dave tells her that these windows were replaced at some point in the past 50 years before the building was listed, at a time when it wasn’t used or occupied, although the records are vague. The glass is in excellent condition and Sir Robert has not budgeted either the time or the expense to replace glass in the heritage building.
While writing the specification, Krystyna discovers that the standards for fire protection as well as impact safety and environmental control have changed since the glass was most likely installed. After this research, she emails Dave and outlines what she considers to be the safest and most responsible form of mitigation: to fully replace all the large windows with glass produced by a supplier with experience in fire-rated safety glass for heritage buildings. To justify this cost, she highlights the potential dangers to human health and the environment of not replacing the glass.
Dave replies with a reassuring tone and refers to his extensive experience as a contractor. He feels that too many additional costs would be incurred such as finding qualified installers, writing up new architectural plans, or stopping work altogether due to planning permissions related to historic properties. He argues that there is a low probability of a problem actually arising with the glass. Dave encourages Krystyna not to reveal these findings to Sir Robert so that “future conflicts can be avoided.”
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What ethical issues that can be identified in this scenario?
2. Discussion: What interpersonal dynamics might affect the way this situation can be resolved?
3. Discussion: If you were the engineer, what action would you take, if any?
4. Activity: Identify all potential stakeholders and their values, motivations, and responsibilities using the SERM found in the Learning and teaching resources section.
5. Activity: Role-play the engineer’s response to the contractor or conversation with the developer.
6. Discussion: How do the RAEng/Engineering Council Statement of Ethical Principles and the Society of Construction Law Statement of Ethical Principles inform what ethical issues may be present, and what solutions might be possible?
Dilemma – Part two:
After considerable back and forth with Dave, Krystyna sees that she is unlikely to persuade him to make the changes to the project that she has recommended. Now she must decide whether to go against his advice and notify Sir Robert that they have disagreed about the best solution. Additionally, Krystyna has begun to wonder whether she has a responsibility to future residents of the building who will be unaware of any potential dangers related to the windows. Meanwhile, time is moving on and there are other deadlines related to the project that she must turn her focus to and complete.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
The Society of Construction Law’s Statement of Ethical Principles advises “provid[ing] information and warning of matters . . . which are of potential detriment to others who may be adversely affected by them.”
2. Discussion: If Krystyna simply warns them, is her ethical responsibility fulfilled?
3. Activity: Map the value conflicts and trade-offs Krystyna is dealing with. Use theMapping Actors and Processes article in the Learning and teaching resources section.
4. Discussion: If you were Krystyna, what would you do and why?
5. Discussion: In what ways are the professional codes helpful (or not) in resolving this dilemma?
6. Discussion: ’Advises’ or ‘requires’? What’s the difference between these two words in their use within a code of ethics? Could an engineer’s response to a situation based on these codes of ethics be different depending on which of these words is used?
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found 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.
Authors: Dr Sarah Junaid (Aston University); Emma Crichton (Engineers Without Borders UK); Professor Dawn Bonfield MBE (Aston University); Professor Chike Oduoza (University of Wolverhampton); Johnny Rich (Engineering Professors’ Council); Steven Kerry (Rolls-Royce); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Ethical entrepreneurship in engineering industries.
Engineering disciplines: Mechanical engineering, Electrical and electronic engineering, Chemical engineering.
Ethical issues: Justice, Corporate social responsibility, Accountability.
Professional situations: Company growth, Communication, Public health and safety.
Educational level: Beginner to advanced.
Educational aim: To encourage ethical motivation. Ethical motivation occurs when a person is moved by a moral judgement, or when a moral judgement is a spur to a course of action.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case involves the CEO of Hydrospector, a newly formed company that makes devices detecting water leaks. The CEO has been working hard to secure contracts for her new business and has a personal dilemma in structuring her business model. She must balance the need to accelerate growth by working with high revenue global corporations, with her desire to bring a positive impact to the communities with greatest need. By working with less wealthy local authorities, the company risks slower business growth.
This dilemma can be addressed from a micro-ethics point of view by analysing personal ethics, intrinsic motivations and moral values. It can also be analysed from a macro-ethics point of view, by considering: corporate responsibility in perpetuating inequity versus closing the inequality gap; and sustainability in terms of the local socioeconomic system.
There is also a clear cultural context in this case study that provides an opportunity to develop cultural awareness when addressing engineering problems. Through this lens, this case can be structured to emphasise the need to engage with local communities and stakeholders – such as a UK company choosing to engage with its local community first. Or it can be framed to emphasise global responsibility whereby the CEO of a UK company chooses to address water shortages in South Africa.
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 4here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The case study is presented in three parts. Part one introduces the case and discusses personal and corporate ethical dilemmas, with an emphasis on ethical awareness. Pre-reading may be needed on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) mandate and / or corporate social responsibility (CSR). Part two expands on Part one to bring in the socio-political elements of corporate responsibility. For Part three, instructors or programme directors could incorporate this exercise in projects that involve product development, with students working through Part one and two as examples. This part aims to encourage ethical action on the part of students who are developing their own products, so that they can consider aspects of justice, responsibility, and sustainability in their engineering solutions. This case also allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
determine if an engineering situation has ethical dimensions and identify what these are;
identify where tensions might arise as an engineer versus a business owner;
explore how a business model operates with its potential impact on society and the local / global economy;
practise stakeholder mapping;
debate possible solutions to an ethical dilemma.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
highlight professional codes of ethics and their relevance to engineering situations;
address approaches that resolve interpersonal and / or professional conflict;
integrate technical content on fluid mechanics (such as conservation of mass, systems engineering] or content on electronics [such as developing a sensor for water flow detection);
integrate engineering content with business and entrepreneurial leadership;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
In the last few years, there have been calls for more corporate responsibility in environmental and socioeconomic ecosystems globally. For example:
In 2006, theESG mandate was set up by a group of investors to create a more sustainable financial system for companies to operate in, and to use as part of their annual reporting of performance indicators.
In 2017, the economist Kate Raworth set out to reframe GDP growth to a different indicator system that reflects on social and environmental impact. See the article:A Moment for Change?
Part one:
Maria is a young co-founder and technical lead (CTO) living in the UK looking at the business development of her newly-formed transnational company, Hydrospector, based in Johannesburg (Joburg), South Africa, where her co-founder/CEO is located. The company makes devices that detect water leaks and the small team has been working hard to secure contracts for their new business. Maria is an electrical and electronics engineer by training and was the lead inventor for this technology. She has proven her technology works in detecting leaks early and at low levels, lowering the risk of damage to infrastructure that impacts local communities. The technology will also save companies millions each year by detecting low-level water loss that currently remains undetected. Her company is now in a position where they need to find customers.
Targeting big corporations will mean her technology will get out much more quickly and be a huge economic benefit to surrounding industries and society. Maria comes from a lower socioeconomic background in Lancashire (UK) and her personal experience of the economic disparity between the different areas she has lived in, means she feels strongly about not wanting to perpetuate this norm. She feels that Hydrospector’s business growth model needs to have a more active approach in preventing the widening of the socioeconomic gap. In Joburg, where the company is based, there are stark differences in the affluence of neighbouring communities. Should she focus on working with poorly-funded local authorities to help ensure their product gets to the places most in need, rather than prioritise projects that will be more lucrative and accelerate the business more quickly?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Personal values – what personal values are causing the internal conflict for Maria? Does her own background make a difference to the issues at stake? If Maria was from an affluent area / background, how may this have affected her perspective?
2. Discussion: Professional values – what ethical principles and codes of conduct are applicable to this scenario?
3. Discussion: Wider impact – is focusing on profit alone morally inferior to prioritising ESG?
5. Activity: Technical integration – undertake a technical activity in the areas of mechanical, electrical and / or chemical engineering related water flow detection sensors.
Foreword and pre-reading for Part two:
It is useful to learn more about the context (geographical, political, social and cultural) of this case study in order to gain a deeper understanding of the nuances that each scenario brings. The following section outlines the local problems with water supply and misuse in South Africa compared to the UK. The links below are starting points to explore these challenges further and carry out research when working on projects as an engineer. They represent perspectives from news, government, and industry sources.
The CEO and Operations Manager of Hydrospector is Maria’s friend and co-founder, Lucy, who grew up in Joburg. Like Maria, Lucy grew up experiencing the socioeconomic disparity in her area. Lucy’s passion for bringing benefits to disadvantaged communities makes their collaboration an ideal partnership. The company started trading in South Africa where there is a particular interest fromJohannesburg Water, the main local water supply company. Water supply shortages in the region have badly affected the country in recent years. Hydrospector has successfully won a bid with a venture capitalist based in South Africa and has rolled out the sensors in Makers Valley, Joburg, a region that has developed economically in recent years. Soon after, the company also won a contract to install sensors in the Merseyside region of the UK in a trial project co-funded by the local council andUnited Utilities.
Scenario A – Environmental impact:
Hydrospector’s components are sourced in South Africa with both manufacturing and assembly carried out locally in Joburg. It has taken Lucy and her team a year to develop supply and manufacturing operations to run smoothly and economically. To ship to the UK would be a financially better deal for the company than to source and manufacture the product locally in the UK. However, the impact of the carbon footprint would not help their ESG goals. Lucy will have to decide whether to ship the product from South Africa or produce the product locally and therefore set up another operations team in the UK. Setting up in the UK will cost the company more due to component pricing, but would support the local economy. The company could potentially afford to set up UK operations, but this will impact heavily on their financial profit forecast in the first couple of years.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What should Lucy decide? What considerations does she need to make for supply chain management, when considering local customers compared to global ones?
2. Discussion: What could be the unintended consequences of her decision? Consider this question from the following points of view: environmental, economic and social – the public view.
Scenario B – Unintended outcomes:
After six months’ post-installation work in inner-city Bertrams, Makers Valley, Johannesburg Water has contacted Hydrospector about the illegal tapping of its pipes. They suspect water is being stolen from these settlements according to data from the installed sensors. Furthermore, engineers from Johannesburg Water carrying out maintenance work have found some of the sensors have been deliberately damaged, which they suspect has been done so that illegal tapping goes undetected. Johannesburg Water wants to prosecute those responsible and has contacted Lucy to provide all the data logged from the sensors and the time/date stamps to identify specific details about damage. Lucy, however, is aware of cases where funds intended to be used to improve infrastructure for low-income households such as electricity, water supply and sanitation, have sometimes been poorly managed and at worse embezzled so that the communities are left worse off, with ageing pipes and infrastructure. She realises that some illegal tapping may have been done in order to provide for these communities.
Several weeks after this discovery, United Utilities in Merseyside has been in touch about local individuals and companies illegally accessing water from hydrants that are found in street drains for their own usage. These companies have mobile trucks and so have been difficult to find and prosecute. United Utilities would like Hydrospector’s full co-operation in providing the logging data needed, as well as installing sensors at targeted locations where they suspect misuse is happening. Lucy’s research has found that 99% of leakages in the UK are not illegally sourced but rather are due to poor pipe networks. In fact, 20% of water supply loss in the UK is due to leaks and paid for by the customer (domestic users).
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: How should Hydrospectorrespond to the two requests? Should the response be the same or different? If the same, why? If different, what makes the two cases different?
2. Discussion: Should water supply companies ultimately be responsible for water leakages? If so, why are they charging domestic users for the 20% water loss? What are the environmental implications of this business decision?
3. Discussion: Maria and Lucy are also concerned that, if these cases were to be picked up by the media, there might be a reputational risk for the company and their ability to achieve their business vision and goals. The co-founders are worried about their product’s unintended consequences., They feel that it could be misused, potentially exacerbate socio-economic inequality further and go against the intended use of the product. Are they right to be concerned? Are they responsible for unintended outcomes?
4. Activity: What role should engineers have in shaping public policy? Often laws and regulations related to policy are dependent on technical knowledge, but some engineers believe it is not their role or responsibility to help shape policy. Debate this issue, or research the relationship between engineering and policy.
Scenario C – Public trust:
Hydrospector has been involved in a project where it surveyed and identified significant leakages and damage to the water supply system in one of the communities in Joburg. The company has been asked by the local authorities not to disclose this information to other parties, particularly media outlets, due to the security risks, including potential terrorism. However, this will affect the transparency of the project, which is publicly funded. In addition, reporting these findings could help resolve the problems found, for example, supply and construction companies may be willing to step up to help.
The company suspects that the local authorities are seeking to avoid a public outcry for the sake of impact scores on customer satisfaction. However, without public knowledge, change to improve the situation is likely to be slow.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Should the company keep the data unpublished or report the data? What ethical reasons can you identify for either choice?
2. Discussion: Should transparency be prioritised over public trust every time? Why or why not?
3. Activity: Debate the above questions by splitting up the students and having each group / individual represent the potential perspectives of United Utilities, Johannesburg Water and Maria / Lucy.
4. Discussion: What guidelines should companies be given for releasing publicly funded data and data misuse?
Foreword and pre-reading for Part three:
This exercise can be supported by technical and non-technical sessions such as business models,SWOT analysis, project management and risk.
Part three:
First, introduce Parts one and two of this case study to inform the exercise as part of a student project, such as a final year capstone.
Design a business growth model for an engineered product, identifying the potential socioeconomic impact, providing a viable profitable forecast and a life cycle sustainability assessment. Explore the ESG indicators andRaworth’s Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries as starting points.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion and activity: Is impact your main priority? What type of impact are you looking to gain for your business? Consider economic, personal, social and environmental impacts – such as research exercise.
2. Discussion: What risks and opportunities can be identified (SWOT) for the different growth models that could be used to achieve the impact you desire?
3. Activity: Create a business growth model and plan based on your critical research.
4. Activity: Draft a CSR plan for this business.
5. Activity: Speak to people in non-engineering fields that can review and help develop your model.
Enhancements:
An enhancement for this case study can be found 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.
Case enhancement: Glass safety in a heritage building conversion
Authors: