Case enhancement: Business growth models in engineering industries within an economic system

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):

3. Group activity (15 min +)

4. Whole class discussion/debate (15 min +)

 

Learning resources:

Ethics in Engineering resources:

Professional Codes of Conduct resources:

Corporate Social Responsibility Resources:

ESG Mandate Resources:

In recent years, there have been calls for more corporate responsibility in environmental and socioeconomic ecosystems globally. For example:

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?

Further reading:

 

Group Activity – Structure:

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.

 

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).

 

Pros and Cons of each approach:

Group 1: Defend a profit-driven business model:

Advantages and ethical impact:

Disadvantage and ethical impacts:

Group 2: Defend a non-profit driven business:

Advantages and ethical impact:

Disadvantage and ethical impacts:

 

Relevant ethical codes of conduct examples:

Royal Academy’s Statement of Ethical Principles:

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.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Dr Fiona Truscott (UCL). 

Keywords: Ethical theories; Societal impact; Decision making; Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI); Health. 

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to better understand ethics and its connection to engineering education. It is also useful for students who are being introduced to this topic. 

 

Premise: 

Engineering, technology, and society have always had a close relationship, with changes and innovations in each affecting the other two. For instance, being able to communicate and access information instantaneously and 24/7 has changed our relationships with family, friends and colleagues as well as with employers and governments. While this certainly has some benefits, such as being able to work from home during the Covid-19 pandemic, is always being connected a good thing? We’ve seen a blurring of the lines between work and home with both positive and negative impacts. Social media algorithms bring us cute cat photos but they also spread misinformation. Ethics in engineering invites us to question how we should respond to the development and deployment of new technologies like these.   

Ethics can especially be seen through engineering innovations that mean life or death. For example, pacemakers are medical devices developed in the late 1950s that can regulate a person’s heart rate when their natural cells are damaged or misfunctioning. This diagnosis used to be a death sentence, but now millions of patients have pacemakers, completely changing their life expectancy and standard of living. At the time, however, there were ethical questions to answer about how they should be tested and implemented.  

Technology and engineering do not just affect society; society also influences engineering. This can be seen through the discovery of Viagra, which was originally developed as a treatment for heart disease but in clinical trials it was found to have little effect on heart disease but a much more interesting – and lucrative – side effect. The market for Viagra and similar drugs is worth billions of dollars, directing research and funds towards treating a condition that is not necessarily a life or death situation just because we are willing to pay for it. What engineering focuses on, or doesn’t, is determined by what society wants, thinks is important, or will pay for. Ethics invites us to identify and consider our values and how those influence what problems engineers identify and which ones they choose to work on. 

Clearly our decisions as engineers have an impact on society, so how might we approach making these decisions? Luckily there are people who have been thinking about how to make society-impacting decisions for thousands of years – ethicists! Ethics gives us a framework for balancing different opinions, needs, and values when making decisions, big or small. There are three lenses that we can use when thinking about ethics within Engineering: Professional, Theoretical, and Practical. 

 

Professional ethics: 

Professional engineering ethics is the question of how an engineer should behave in a professional setting or situation. Typically, professional engineering bodies, such as the Institute of Chemical Engineers, produce codes of conduct which outline how members are expected to behave in professional contexts. Members agree to follow these codes when they join the professional body. Many professional bodies’ codes of conduct are based on the joint statement on ethics from the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council (2017). 

This is similar to an ethical theory, Virtue Ethics. The key question in virtue ethics is what makes a good person? A good person is one who fulfils their purpose. By following behaviours called virtues that fulfil that purpose, and avoiding ones that don’t, called vices, a person can always make the right ethical decision (Blackburn, 2003; Johnson, 2020).  

Coming from another angle we can look at what the responsibilities of an engineer are, and ask who they are responsible to. Typically, an engineer has a client that they are working for but they are also responsible to the wider community and the public. Buildings must fulfil the clients’ needs but must also comply with regulations. Where these responsibilities are in opposition, law and codes of conduct can help an engineer decide a path forward.  

 

Theoretical ethics: 

Besides Virtue Ethics, first propounded by Aristotle, there are several other ethical theories that influence engineering ethics. Utilitarianism is a theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. A basic description of Utilitarianism is that the best ethical action is the one that produces the most happiness for the largest number of people. Here the approach centres not on an action itself but on the consequences of it. Utilitarianism is very context dependent, with all potential actions on the table, and it requires a collective or community-based approach. However, there appears to be a big flaw which is that it could justify harm to a few if it brought happiness to the many. Bentham and Mill both emphasised a key caveat: that we should select the action which produces the most happiness for as many as possible without causing harm to individuals (Blackburn, 2003; Johnson, 2020). 

Also writing in the late 18th and early 19th centuries but coming at ethical decision making from a very different angle is Immanuel Kant and his duty-based theory of ethics, also called deontology. Kant argued that sentient beings are ends in themselves and not means to achieve something else. The ethics of an action therefore should not be decided by its outcomes but is inherent in the action itself. When making an ethical decision, you should choose the course of action that you would be willing to follow under all circumstances, otherwise known as the categorical imperative. While this approach aligns with many legal systems, we can all think of circumstances when typically unacceptable actions become acceptable (Blackburn, 2003; Johnson, 2020). 

While no individual person follows Aristotle, Bentham, or Kant all the time, they do give us some insight into how people make ethical decisions. In general people will want the most happiness for the most people but they also have personal, legal or societal red lines that they won’t cross; or, that they will cross depending on the situation.  

 

Practical ethics: 

Practical Ethics is focused on the reality of making decisions when faced with an ethical issue. One useful approach for engineers outlined by Caroline Whitbeck (1998) is the analogy to solving design problems, something engineers are very familiar with! In design problems, we have a series of constraints and requirements that any successful solution needs to fulfil. We come up with a range of potential solutions, some that don’t fulfil the criteria, and some that do. We then select a successful solution based on our own experience, priorities, or interpretation of the brief. Other people will select different successful solutions. The same is true for ethical problems: there are criteria that must be achieved for a successful solution and each individual might choose a different successful solution.  

Engineers are very familiar with what constraints and requirements look like in design problem solving but what about ethical problem solving? This is where Aristotle, Bentham, and Kant pop back up again. Some criteria will involve harms that we want to avoid or ways to produce the most happiness, while others will be values that we hold to under any circumstances.  

 

Conclusion: 

While it may not always be clear how much impact a single engineer’s actions can have on the ethical decisions of a whole project or company, one area where we can have a significant impact is in design. Who can and can’t use our creations? Who are we excluding or favouring in our design decisions? Until recently crash test dummies were modelled on the 50th percentile man (Criado Perez, 2020). Car safety systems were designed around this dummy ensuring they survived the safety tests. Female drivers tend to be shorter, so they move their seat further forward and higher up, meaning that they are more likely to be an ‘out of position’ driver. Additionally, car seats are too firm for female drivers, throwing them forward faster on impact and not deforming as much, dispersing less of the energy of the crash. The effects of this engineering design decision is that in car crashes, women are 17% more likely to die, 47% more likely to be seriously injured and 71% more likely to be moderately injured because of the design choices made (Criado Perez, 2020). Who engineers do, or don’t, design for is an ethical question that has real world impact. 

Given the impact that engineering and technology has already had and will continue to have on society, we need to include ethical thinking in our day-to-day practise to ensure that we understand the consequences of our actions and decisions, and that our work makes positive impacts and minimises negative ones.   

 

References: 

Blackburn, S. (2003) Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford: OUP. 

Criado Perez, C. (2020) Invisible women. Vintage. 

Johnson, D.G. (2020) Engineering ethics. Yale University Press. 

RAEng and Engineering Council joint Statement of Ethical Principles. 

Whitbeck, C. (1998) Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge University Press. 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Konstantinos Konstantis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens). 

Keywords: Ethical theories; Societal impact; Privacy; Freedom; Security; Pedagogy; 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 module design. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.  

 

Premise: 

It goes without saying that the way we design and use technology plays a crucial role in our daily lives. Engineers and their decisions have a huge impact on society (Unger, 2005). Technology is presented as a very promising solution for many societal problems, such as the environmental crisis and poverty. At the same time, many ethical challenges arise. The imminent possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) and robots replacing humans in a vast array of professions, and the everyday cyber-related issues concerning privacy, freedom, property, and security, are just a few of the challenges that the information revolution has bequeathed to us. Furthermore, advances in biomedical technology and, in particular, genetic engineering and developments in reproductive procedures, raise very similar issues including the reconfiguration of the distinction between the artificial and the human. Without a consideration of ethics, engineering could be inadequately or inappropriately designed to address these challenges. 

Walczak et al. (2010) assert that ethical development comes as an output of three components. First, the knowledge of ethics refers to the ability of engineers to understand what is ethical and what is not ethical. In this component belongs the understanding of the professional responsibility of engineers and of codes of ethics for engineers. Second, ethical reasoning refers to the ability of engineers to first understand ethical problems and then to deal with them. Third, ethical behaviour refers to the ethical intentions that engineers have during an ethical problem and ethical solutions that engineers provide to that problem (Walczak et al., 2010). According to Walczak et al. (2010), formal curricular experiences, co-curricular experiences, student characteristics, and institutional culture are four aspects that influence ethical development of engineering students.  

However, there is a disconnection between these four aspects and ethical development. There are five obstacles that are responsible for this disconnection (Walczak et al., 2010, p. 15.749.6). First, “the curriculum is already full, and there is little room for ethics education,” second, “faculty lack adequate training for teaching ethics,” third, “there are too few incentives to incorporate ethics into the curriculum,” fourth, “policies about academic dishonesty are inconsistent,” and fifth, “institutional growth is taxing existing resources.” Among other ways to overcome these obstacles, Walczak et al. (2010, p. 15.749.9 – 15.749.10) recommend the integration of curricular and co-curricular activities. Student organisations and service learning are two examples of how to integrate ethics in engineering education effectively. For instance, student organisations could organise lectures in which engineering students have the chance to listen to engineers talk about real life ethical problems and dilemmas. Secondly, service learning is a way for engineering students to combine ethics education with their engineering practice. Participating in community service activities offers the opportunity for students to understand the role of engineers and their responsibility towards society. Finally, integrating ethics alongside technical curriculum and within the context of engineering projects can help students understand the ethical context of their work.   

This is an important reason for integration, because as van de Poel and Royakkers (2011) describe, ethics helps engineers to deal with technical risks. Martin and Schinzinger (2009) show us how different subfields of engineering, such as computer and environmental engineering, could benefit from the inclusion of ethics. Baura (2006) analyses how engineers could have acted in concrete ethical dilemmas that have been presented in the past, in order not to lead to some of the engineering disasters that have happened. Martin and Schinzinger (1983) highlight engineering as “social experimentation,” requiring the need for the ethical education of engineers in order for them to be ready to take the right decisions in dilemmas they will have to deal with in the future. According to Fledderman (2011), codes of ethics of engineers and an array of ethical theories could be combined to offer ethical problem-solving techniques (for example ‘line drawing’ and ‘flow charts’) to engineers.  

However, ethics should be integrated in engineering for another reason as important as those listed above. Technology not only shapes society, but it is shaped by society too. Therefore, engineering ethics should be twofold. First, engineering ethics should address ‘disaster ethics,’ and second, it should be about “the social aspects of everyday engineering practice” (Kline, 2001, p. 14). Traditionally, engineering accidents become the cause for engineers and engineering ethicists to analyse the ethical implications of technology and the ways that engineers could take decisions that will not lead to disasters again. These examples are called ‘disaster ethics’. The “social aspects of everyday engineering practice” have to do with the fact that technology is not made in a single time when an engineer has to take a serious decision that may cause an accident or not, but rather in daily and regular practice. These aspects are referring to the co-constitution of technology and society and how engineers can “deal with everyday issues of tremendous significance regarding the ethical and social implications of engineering” (Kline, 2001, p. 19).  

The Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering have published the Statement of Ethical Principles, which should be followed by all engineers in the UK. Statements like this are useful to encourage engineers to act ethically. But, ethics in engineering should be integrated in the whole “engineering life”. From research to implementation, ethics should be part of engineering (Kline, 2001).  

If courses relevant to engineering ethics are absent from the curriculum, engineering students take the message that ethics is not important for their education and therefore for their profession (Unger, 2005). In contrast with the claim that ethics is innate and therefore cannot be taught (Bok, 1976), ethics should be integrated in engineering teaching and practice. The fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and History of Technology could play a crucial role in covering the twofold aspect of engineering ethics as presented in this article. Scholars from these fields, among others, could give answers on questions such as “How do engineering practices become common, despite the fact they may be risky?” This is what Vaughan (1997), in her analysis of the Challenger disaster, calls “normalisation of deviance”. This is the only way for engineers to understand the bidirectional relationship between technology and society, and to put aside the dominant ideology of neutral technology that affects and shapes society and doesn’t get affected by it. No matter if engineers want to add ethics into the making of technology, “in choosing a solution, engineers are making an ethical judgement” (Robison, 2014, p.1). 

To conclude, there are many engineering challenges that need to be addressed. Integrating ethics in engineering is one of the best ways to address these challenges for the benefit of the whole of society. This is also the way to overcome problems relevant with the difficulty to add ethics into the engineering curriculum, such as the fact that the engineering curriculum is already full. Ethics has not only to do with the way that technology affects society, but also with the fact that society shapes the way that engineers design and develop technology. If ethics is integrated in engineering education and the curriculum, students perceive that their actions in engineering are not only technical, but at the same time have to do with ethics too. They don’t perceive ethics as a separate ‘tick-box’ that they have to fill during engineering, but instead they perceive ethics as a fundamental part of engineering. 

 

References: 

Baura, G. D. (2006) Engineering Ethics: An Industrial Perspective. Academic Press. 

Bok, D. C. (1976) ‘Can Ethics Be Taught?’ Change, 8(9), pp. 26–30.  

Fleddermann, C. B. (2011) Engineering Ethics (4th ed.). Pearson. 

Hagendorff, T. (2020) ‘The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines’, Minds and Machines, 30(1), pp. 99–120.  

Kline, R. R. (2001) ‘Using history and sociology to teach engineering ethics’. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(4), pp. 13–20.  

Martin, M. W. and Schinzinger, R. (1983) ‘Ethics in engineering’. Philosophy Documentation Center, 2(2), 101–105. 

Martin, M. W. and Schinzinger, R. (2009) Introduction to Engineering Ethics. McGraw-Hill. 

Poel, I. van de, and Royakkers, L. (2011) Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. 

Robison, W. L. (2014) ‘Ethics in engineering’, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering, pp. 1–4.  

Unger, S. H. (2005) ‘How best to inject ethics into an engineering curriculum with a required course’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(3), 373–377.  

Vaughan, D. (1997) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press. 

Walczak, K., Finelli, C., Holsapple, M., Sutkus, J., Harding, T., and Carpenter, D. (2010) ‘Institutional obstacles to integrating ethics into the curriculum and strategies for overcoming them’, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, pp. 15.749.1-15.749.14.  

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Andrew Avent (University of Bath). 

​​​​​​​Keywords: Assessment criteria; Pedagogy; Communication.  

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 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37. 

 

The debate format: 

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. 

 

Some key points to bear in mind: 

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. 

 

Discussion points for improvements: 

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: 

 

Appendices: 

Typical list of debate topics: 

  1. Gas turbines are (not) a dying technology for aircraft propulsion.
  2. Cumbrian super coal mine: there is (no) justification for accessing these fossil fuel reserves.
  3. Metal additive manufacturing, 3D Printing, is (not) a sustainable technology. 
  4. Mining the Moon/asteroids for minerals, helium, etc. should (not) be permitted. 
  5. Electrification of lorries via hydrogen fuel cell technology is (not) preferable to changing the road infrastructure to include overhead power lines (or similar). 
  6. Electrification of road vehicles is (not) preferable to using cleaner fuel alternatives in internal combustion engine cars. 
  7. The use of single use plastic packaging is (not) defensible when weighed up against increases in food waste. 
  8. The environmental impact of Formula 1 can(not) be justified through improvements to vehicle and other technologies. 
  9. Solar technologies should (not) take a larger share of future UK investment compared to wind technologies. 
  10. Tidal turbines will (never) produce more than 10% of the UK’s power. 
  11. Wave energy converters are (never) going to be viable as a clean energy resource. 
  12. Commercial sailing vessels should (not) be used to transport non-perishable goods around the globe. 
  13. We should (not) trust algorithms over humans in safety-critical settings, for example autonomous vehicles. 
  14. 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 
  15. Mechanical Engineering will (not) one day be conducted entirely within the Metaverse, or similar. 
  16. 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. 
  17. A total individual annual carbon footprint quota would (not) be the best way to reduce our carbon emissions. 
  18. The UK power grid will (not) be overwhelmed by the shift to electrification in the next decade. 
  19. We are (not) more innovative than we were in the past – breakthrough innovations are (not) still being made. 
  20. 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. 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Professor Manuela Rosa (Algarve University). 

Keywords: Societal impact; Equity; Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI); Design; Justice; Equity; Communication; Global responsibility. 

Who is this article for?: This article should be read by educators at all levels in higher education who wish to integrate social sustainability, EDI, and ethics into the engineering and design curriculum or module design. It will also help to prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for. 

  

Premise: 

The Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on 9 December 1975, stipulated protection of the rights of people with disabilities. The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity, demands that all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, must recognise that the dignity of the human person is fundamental and so the development of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals must meet all segments of society in a way that “no one will be left behind”.  

In relation to engineering, The Statement of Ethical Principles published by the Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2005 and revised in 2017, articulates one of its strategic challenges to be positioning engineering at the heart of society, enhancing its wellbeing, improving the quality of the built environment, and promoting EDI. To uphold these principles, engineering professionals are required to promote social equity, guaranteeing equal opportunities to access the built environment and transportation systems, enabling the active participation of all citizens in society, including vulnerable groups. The universal design approach is one method that engineers can use to ensure social sustainability. 

 

The challenges of universal and inclusive design: 

Every citizen must have the same equality of opportunities in using spaces because the existence of an accessible built environment is fundamental to guarantee vitality, safety, and sociability. These ethical values associated with the technical decision-making process were considered by the American architect Ronald Lawrence Mace (1941-1998) who defined the universal design concept as “designing all products, buildings and exterior spaces to be usable by all people to the greatest extent possible” (Mace et al., 1991), thus contributing to social inclusion.  

Universal accessibility according to this universal design approach is “the characteristic of an environment or object which enables everybody to enter into a relationship with, and make use of, that object or environment in a friendly, respectful and safe way” (Aragall et al., 2003). It focuses on people with reduced mobility, such as people with disabilities (mobility, vision, hearing and cognitive dimensions), children and elderly people. Built environment and transport systems must be designed considering this equity attribute which is associated with social sustainability and inclusion. 

The Center for Universal Design of the North Carolina State University developed seven principles of universal design (Connell et al., 1997):  

1. Equitable use 

2. Flexibility in use  

3. Simple and intuitive use  

4. Perceptible information  

5. Tolerance for error  

6. Low physical effort  

7. Size and space for approach and use.    

These principles must always be incorporated in the conception of products and physical environments, so as to create a ‘fair built’ environment, where all have the right to use it, in the same independent and natural way. This justice design must guarantee autonomy in the use of spaces and transport vehicles, contributing to the self-determination of citizens.   

The perceptions of the space users are fundamental to be considered in the design process to achieve the usability of the built environment and transport systems. Pedestrian infrastructure design and modal interfaces demand user-centred approaches and therefore processes of co-design and co-creation with communities, where people are effectively involved as collaborators and participants. 

Achieving an inclusive society is a great challenge because there are situations where the needs of users are divergent: technical solutions created for a specific group of people are inadequate for others. For example, wheelchair users and elderly people need smooth surfaces and, on the contrary, blind people need tactile surfaces.  

Consequently, in the process of universal design, some people can feel excluded because they need other technical solutions. It is then necessary to consider precise inclusive design when projecting urban spaces for all.   

Universal design is linked with designing one-space-suits-almost-all, and inclusive design focuses on one-space-suits-one, for example design a space for everyone (collective perspective) versus design a space for one specific group (particular perspective). As the built environment must be understandable to and usable by all people, both are important for social sustainability. Universal design contributes to social inclusion, but added inclusive design is needed, matching the excluded users to the object or space design.  

In order to promote social inclusion and quality of life, to which everyone is entitled, universal and inclusive co-design of the built environment and the transportation systems demands specific approaches that have to be integrated in engineering education: 

 

Conclusion: 

Universal and inclusive co-design of the built environment and transportation systems must be seen as an ethical act in engineering. Co-design for social sustainability can be strengthened through engineering acts. Ethical responsibility must be assumed to create inclusive solutions considering human diversity, empowering engineers to act and design justice.  

There is a strong need for engineers to possess a set of skills and competencies related to the ability to work with other professionals (for example from the social sciences),  users, or collaborators. In the 21st century, beyond the use of technical knowledge to solve problems, engineers need communication skills to achieve the sustainable development goals, requiring networking, cooperating in teams, and working with communities.  

Engineering education must consider transdisciplinary approaches which make clear progress in tackling urban challenges and finding human-centred solutions. Universal and inclusive co-design must be incorporated routinely into the practice of engineers and assumed in Engineering Ethics Codes.  

 

References: 

Aragall, F. and EuCAN members, (2003) European Concept for Accessibility: Technical Assistance Manual. Luxemburg: EuCAN – European Concept for Accessibility Network.  

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M. and Vanderheiden, G. (1997) The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. USA.  

Mace, R. L., Hardie G. J. and Place, J. P. (1991) ‘Accessible environments: Toward universal design,’ in W.E. Preiser, J.C. Vischer, E.T. White (Eds.). Design Intervention: Toward a More Human Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 155-180.  

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. (1975). Proclaimed by G/A/RES 3447 of 9 December 1975. 

United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015, New York.  

Additional resources: 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Dr Gill Lacey (Teesside University). 

Keywords: Pedagogy; Societal impact; Personal ethics; Research ethics. 

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. It will also help prepare students with the integrated skill sets that employers are looking for.  

 

Premise: 

Ethics is defined in many ways but is generally agreed to be a set of moral (right or wrong) principles that govern social behaviour. While this is not the place for a discussion of ethical philosophies and theories that analyse what we mean by “moral”, or how we define social behaviour, it is pertinent to consider the nature of engineering ethics so that we understand why it should be integrated into modules. Davis gives us a rather pared down explanation: “Integrating ethics into science and engineering courses is largely a matter of providing context for what is already being taught, context that also makes the material already being taught seem ‘more relevant,’” (Davis, 2006).  

Despite this, very often ethics is considered as an afterthought – sometimes it only comes up when a solution to a technical problem results in unintended consequences. Rather, we need our students to look at any technical solution through an ethical lens – as well as through an economic one. This generally involves considering what effect any technical project might have on society, especially on those who use that technology. Teaching students to consider the technology through an ethical lens makes them true engineers, not just technicians. And as Davis implies, relevance provides motivation. 

 

Some principles for integrating ethics:

Consideration needs to be given to improving our students’ ethical learning throughout their course/programme (Hess and Fore, 2018). We argue that ethics can and should be embedded into most modules in a natural way, giving as much or as little time to it as necessary. A planned progression should be aimed for throughout the course, and the Ethics Explorer in this Toolkit provides suggestions as to how this can be accomplished. A more sophisticated understanding will be arrived at over time by exposing them to more and more complex cases where the outcome is not obvious. A graduate engineer should be able to give a considered response to an employer’s question about an ethical position during an interview.  

Other principles for integrating ethics include:  

1. State your assumptions and moral position at the start of a course/module 

This is not the same as taking a moral stance. Some moral issues can be universally agreed, but not all, so we need an approach to morally disputed issues.  We must be clear about the ethical framework in which the course is being taught. An ethically neutral engineering course is neither advisable nor possible. 

For instance, it needs to be baldly stated that climate change is real, that all the modules in the course make that assumption, and low carbon solutions are the only ones that will be considered. Some students will be challenged by that. This is a case of stating the moral position of the course and asking the students how they are going to ‘be’ with that position, because it will not be argued for (Broadbent, 2019).  

Many lecturers start a module with an “expectations” list, especially with new students; it could be argued this is a first exposure to engineering ethics as it relates to social and professional behaviour in the teaching space. There is no room for discussion or reflection here; this is a statement of how things are going to be in this community. Sharing accepted moral values is assumed here. 

There are general standards of behaviour to which everyone is expected to conform around respect and disagreeing constructively; there is a professional standard to which we can conform. The advantage of doing this is that it provides certainty and weight to our judgement in report writing as well as practice in professional ethical conduct in the workplace. 

2. Provide resources 

A survey regarding the teaching of ethics showed agreement between the students that provision of resources, such as case studies and examples, were needed to allow ethics to be considered. They want guidance and access to receiving ethical approval for projects or research, and an opportunity for reflection on personal ethics and how these relate to professional attitudes or projects (Covill et al., 2010). Examples include: 

3. Allow for opportunity to reflect 

This can be achieved by requiring a reflection in every level of an engineering degree. It could be part of an assessment at the end of a project or module in the form of a short, written reflection. It could be approached by asking the student in an interview to consider the ethics of a situation and the interviewer can then challenge the student on their journey to become ethically literate.  

Finally, for advice on assessing ethics in an engineering module, see this guidance article. 

 

References: 

Broadbent, O. (2018). ‘Delivering project based learning: Teaching resources and guidance for academics.’ Engineers without Borders and Think-up. 

Covill, D., Singh D.G., Katz, T., and Morris, R. (2010). ‘Embedding ethics into the engineering and product design curricula: A Case study from the UK,’ International Conference On Engineering And Product Design Education, 2 & 3 September. Norwegian University Of Science And Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 

Davis, M. (2006) ‘Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion,’ Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), pp.717-730. 

Hess, J.L., and Fore, G. (2018) ‘A Systematic Literature Review of US Engineering Ethics Interventions,’ Science and Engineering Ethics 24, pp. 551–583.  

Junaid, S., Kovacs, H., Martin, D. A., and Serreau, Y. (2021) ‘What is the role of ethics in accreditation guidelines for engineering programmes in Europe?’, Proceedings of the SEFI 49th Annual Conference: Blended Learning in Engineering Education: challenging, enlightening – and lasting? European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), pp. 274-282. 

Lundeberg, M.A., Levin, B.B. and Harrington, H.L. (eds.), (1999). Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Routledge. 

Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M. (2006) ‘Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases,’ Journal of Engineering Education 95, pp. 123-138. 

 

Additional resources: 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Choosing to install a smart meter

Activity: Technical integration – Practical investigation of electrical energy.

Author: Mr Neil Rogers (Independent Scholar).

 

Overview:

This enhancement is for an activity found in the Dilemma Part two, Point 1 section of the case: “Technical integration – Undertake an electrical engineering technical activity related to smart meters and the data that they collect.”

This activity involves practical tasks requiring the learner to measure parameters to enable electrical energy to be calculated in two different scenarios and then relate this to domestic energy consumption. This activity will give technical context to this case study as well as partly address two AHEP themes:

This activity is in three parts. To fully grasp the concept of electrical energy and truly contextualise what could be a remote and abstract concept to the learner, it is expected that all three parts should be completed (even though slight modifications to the equipment list are acceptable).

Learners are required to have basic (level 2) science knowledge as well as familiarity with the Multimeters and Power Supplies of the institution.

Learners have the opportunity to:

Teachers have the opportunity to:

 

Suggested pre-reading:

To prepare for these practical activities, teachers may want to explain, or assign students to pre-read articles relating to electrical circuit theory with respect to:

 

Learning and teaching resources:

 

Activity: Practical investigation of electrical energy:

Task A: Comparing the energy consumed by incandescent bulbs with LEDs.

1. Power in a circuit.

By connecting the bulbs and LEDs in turn to the PSU with a meter in series:

a. Compare the wattage of the two devices.

b. On interpretation of their data sheets compare their luminous intensities.

c. Equate the quantity of each device to achieve a similar luminous intensity of approximately 600 Lumens (a typical household bulb equivalent).

d. now equate the wattages required to achieve this luminous intensity for the two devices.

 

2. Energy = Power x Time.

The units used by the energy providers are kWh:

a. Assuming the devices are on for 6 hours/day and 365 days/year, calculate the energy consumption in kWh for the two devices.

b. Now calculate the comparative annual cost assuming 1 kWh = 27p ! (update rate).

 

3.  Wider implications.

a. Are there any cost-benefit considerations not covered?

b. How might your findings affect consumer behaviour in ways that could either negatively or positively impact sustainability?

c. Are there any ethical factors to be considered when choosing LED lightbulbs? For instance, you might investigate minerals and materials used for manufacturing and processing and how they are extracted, or end-of-life disposal issues, or fairness of costs (both relating to production and use).

 

Task B: Using a plug-in power meter.

1. Connect the power meter to a dishwasher or washing machine and run a short 15/30 minute cycle and record the energy used in kWh.

2. Connect the power meter to a œ filled kettle and turn on, noting the instantaneous power (in watts) and the time taken. Then calculate the energy used and compare to the power meter.

3. Connect the power meter to the fan heater and measure the instantaneous power. Now calculate the daily energy consumption in kWh for a fan heater on for 6 hours/day.

4. Appreciation of consumption of electrical energy over a 24 hour period (in kWh) is key. What are the dangers in reading instantaneous energy readings from a smart meter?

 

Task C: Calculation of typical domestic electrical energy consumption.

1. Using the list of items in Appendix A, calculate the typical electrical energy usage/day for a typical household.

2. Now compare the electrical energy costs per day and per year for these three suppliers, considering how suppliers source their energy (i.e. renewable vs fossil fuels vs nuclear etc).

 

Standing charge cost / day Cost per kWh Cost / day Cost / year
A) 48p 28p
B) 45p 31p
C) 51p 27p

 

3. Does it matter that data is collected every 30 minutes by your energy supplier? What implications might changing the collection times have?

4. With reference to Sam growing marijuana in the case, how do you think this will show up in his energy bill?

 

Appendix A: Household electrical devices power consumption:

Typical power consumption of electrical devices on standby (in Watts).

Wi-Fi router 10
TV & set top box 20
Radios & alarms 10
Dishwasher  5
Washing machine  5
Cooker & heat-ring controls 10
Gaming devices 10
Laptops x2 10

 

Typical consumption of electrical devices when active (in Watts) and assuming Gas central heating.

TV & set top box (assume 5 hours / day) 120
Dishwasher (assume 2 cycles / week) Use calculated
Washing machine (assume 2 cycles / week) Use calculated
Cooking (oven, microwave etc 1 hour / day) 1000
Gaming devices (1 hour / day) 100
Laptop ( 1 hour / day) 70
Kettle (3 times / day) Use calculated
Heating water pump (2 hours / day) 150
Electric shower (8 mins / day) 8000

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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 Gonzålez, 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.  

GĂ©nova, G., and GonzĂĄlez, 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. 

 

Additional resources: 

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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: Developing a school chatbot for student support services

Activity: Stakeholder mapping to elicit value assumptions and motivations.

Author: Karin Rudolph (Collective Intelligence).

 

Overview:

This enhancement is for an activity found in point 5 of the Summary section of the case study.

What is stakeholder mapping?

What is a stakeholder?

Mapping out stakeholders will help you to:

  1. Identify the stakeholders you need to collaborate with to ensure the success of the project.
  2. Understand the different perspectives and points of view people have and how these experiences can have an impact on your project or product.
  3. Map out a wide range of people, groups or individuals that can affect and be affected by the project.

 

Stakeholder mapping:

The stakeholder mapping activity is a group exercise that provides students with the opportunity to discuss ethical and societal issues related to the School Chatbot case study. We recommend doing this activity in small groups of 6-8 students per table.

 

Resources:

 

Materials:

To carry out this activity, you will need the following resources:

1. Sticky notes (or digital notes if online).

2. A big piece of paper or digital board (Jamboard, Miro if online) divided into four categories:

3. Markers and pencils.

 

The activity:

 

Board One

List of stakeholders:

Below is a list of the stakeholders involved in the Chatbot project. Put each stakeholder on a sticky note and add them to the stakeholders map, according to their level of influence and interest in the projects.

Top tip: use a different colour for each set of stakeholders.

School Chatbot – List of Stakeholders:

 

Placement:

 

Guidance:

Each quadrant represents the following:

Board One

Motivations, assumptions, ethical and societal risks:

Materials:

1. A big piece of paper or digital board (Jamboard, Miro if online) divided into four categories:

2. Sticky notes (or digital notes if online).

3. Markers and pencils.

The activity:

 

Board Two

The Board Two activity can be done in two different ways:

Option 1:

You can use some guiding questions to direct the discussion. For example:

Option 2:

We have already written some assumptions, motivations and ethical/societal risks and you can add these as notes on a table and ask students to place according to each category: stakeholders, motivations, assumptions, and ethical and societal risks.

Motivations:

Assumptions:

Potential ethical and societal risks:

Move and match: 

 

 

 

Reflection:

Ask students to choose 2- 4 sticky notes and explain why they think these are important ethical/societal risks.

 

Potential future activity:

A more advanced activity could involve a group discussion where students are asked to think about some mitigation strategies to minimise these risks.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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.

The decisions engineers make on a daily basis can have significant consequences for underrepresented and disadvantaged groups in society. Prof Dawn Bonfield, Visiting Professor of Inclusive Engineering at Aston University, Royal Society Entrepreneur in Residence at King’s College London and a member of the EPC’s Engineering Ethics Advisory Group explains…

In the recent ethics report published by the RAEng (1) you might have noticed the explicit references, in an ethics context, to the societal and social justice implications of our engineering solutions that can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes for different groups of people. This prioritisation of inclusive outcomes is a welcome expansion of the conventional focus of engineering ethics, which is often rooted in issues such as safety, corruption, and competence.

Reference was made in the first page of the report to the use of crash test dummies that have been designed to represent male drivers, leaving women (and pregnant women in particular) at greater risk in car accidents; the potential for algorithms and internet search engines to influence our thoughts on the world; issues arising from facial recognition technology failing to accurately identify those from Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority communities; and the use of artificial intelligence systems that will make safety-critical, legal, and other life changing decisions, which are often based on historical and biased datasets. You can further explore some of the issues with facial recognition technology in one of the ethics case studies produced by the EPC for their RAEng-supported Engineering Ethics Toolkit.

These are all examples of how, as engineers, we can inadvertently create solutions that are biased against minoritized groups of people if we are not careful. This generally occurs as a direct result of the fact that these groups of people are poorly represented in the engineering sector, and so their inputs are missing in the specification, design, and testing of new technologies (2).

But even before we get to a truly diverse engineering workforce, all engineers must be mindful of the ways in which the decisions they take can be discriminatory or can promulgate bias. In situations like the ones mentioned above it is relatively easy to spot the opportunity for discrimination, but in other cases it can be much more difficult. For example, there are ethical implications associated with the sort of ducting that gets chosen for a new building, where one material causes more pollution to socially and economically disadvantaged populations than another. It is in cases like this that a little more thought is required to spot whether the outcomes of these decisions are inclusive and ethical, or not.

Recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown us very clearly what the ethical implications are of our built environment decisions and designs, where people living in densely populated and overcrowded urban areas with minimal access to outdoor space have had significantly worse health outcomes than those with access to outdoor and green spaces. Inclusive design of the built environment is now a growing and recognised area of our engineering work, and as well as the more obvious examples of ensuring equitable access to those with disability issues, it also recognises that public spaces should be equitable and accessible to all communities. Everybody needs to see themselves represented in these environments and feel able to use them safely and fully. These are issues of ethics and inclusion, as well as social justice and equality, and the requirement we have as engineers to consider all of these perspectives as the creators of our future world must be a part of our systems engineering mindset. Several of the EPC’s ethics case studies focus on responsibility, equity, and stakeholder engagement, such as the Ageing Pipeline and its Impact on Local Communities case.

The importance of systems, design, iterative thinking, and the focus on ensuring that the whole life cycle of a product, including maintenance, repair, deconstruction, and end of life decommissioning, requires true stakeholder engagement, means that these inclusive outcomes can be considered at the very start of projects, rather than as an afterthought, where any changes are much more difficult and costly to integrate. The strengthening of the Social Value Act (3), which requires people who commission public services to explicitly evaluate how they can secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits, also puts emphasis on ensuring the outcomes of any procurement are inclusive and ethical. Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals ethos of Leave No One Behind (4) requires that outcomes are considered from all perspectives, and that solutions taking all of the goals into account are balanced and not considered in silos. The EPC’s ethics case study on Business Growth Models allows engineering students to explore many of these issues.

Designing with the gender perspective in mind, especially in parts of the world where women have very different societal roles based on culture, stereotypes, local norms, and religion, is key to ensuring that the differences and disadvantages that women face are not exacerbated. Understanding these differences is the first step in addressing them, and in many cases, technology can act as a real enabler in situations where women have limited access to traditional education, information, and independence. For example, the widespread use of microfinance in many parts of Africa – a technology not aimed specifically at women – is nevertheless giving women much better access to loans and financial independence than the traditional banking structures did, which women are not always able to access easily. Other examples include understanding the need for sanitation facilities in public spaces such as schools, government offices, transportation hubs and health clinics, without which women’s access to these facilities becomes restricted and their participation curtailed (5).

Another ethical issue comes into play here too. Do we design just to remove bias and discrimination, or do we design to reverse historical bias and discrimination? For example, women have traditionally worked in certain sectors such as care giving roles, and not in sectors like engineering and technology. Algorithmic decision-making tools can use this historical data to preferentially show stereotypical job opportunities based on past trends and evidence, which could foreseeably prevent women from being targeted for engineering related roles. Adapting these tools to make these job opportunities open to all in an equitable way is one thing, but what if we decided to preferentially show engineering roles to women and caring roles to men – a kind of social engineering, if you will? What are the ethics of this, and would that be going too far to remove biases? I will leave you to think about this one yourselves!  If you would like to write a case study about it, we are currently looking for contributors to the toolkit!

The decisions we make daily as engineers have consequences to individuals and communities that have not always been understood or considered in the past, but by understanding the need for inclusive outcomes for all stakeholders, we also ensure that our solutions are ethical, and that we leave no on behind. The ethics case studies in the EPC’s recently launched Engineering Ethics Toolkit reveal the ethical concepts that comprise our everyday activities and what lies behind those decisions – resources like this should be used to ensure ethical decision making is integrated throughout an engineers’ education and continuing professional development.

This blog is also available here.

 

References

  1. RAEng Ethics Report https://raeng.org.uk/policy-and-resources/education-policy/the-engineering-profession/global-responsibility-and-progressive-engineering-leadership/ethics
  2. inceng.org website
  3. Social Value Act https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-value-act-information-and-resources/social-value-act-information-and-resources
  4. Sustainable Development Goals ethos of Leave No One Behind https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values/leave-no-one-behind
  5. Towards Vision Website ‘Gender Perspective in Engineering’ http://www.towardsvision.org/the-gender-perspective-in-engineering.html

 

Dawn Bonfield MBE CEng FIMMM FICE HonFIStructE FWES is Visiting Professor of Inclusive Engineering at Aston University and Royal Society Entrepreneur in Residence at King’s College London.

 

This blog is also available 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.

Let us know what you think of our website