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.
Authors: Diana Martin (Eindhoven University of Technology); Sarah Jayne Hitt, Ph.D. SFHEA (NMITE, Edinburgh Napier University).
Topic: Participatory approaches for engaging with a local community about the development of risky technologies.
Engineering disciplines: Nuclear engineering; Energy; Chemical engineering.
Ethical issues: Corporate Social Responsibility; Risk; Accountability; Respect for the Environment.
Professional situations: Conflicts of interest; Public health and safety; Communication.
Educational level: Advanced.
Educational aim: Engaging in ethical judgement: reaching moral decisions and providing the rationale for those decisions.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study involves an early career engineer tasked with leading the development of plans for the construction of the first nuclear plant in a region. The case can be customised by instructors when specifying the name of the region, as to whether the location of the case study corresponds to the location of the educational institution or if a more remote context is preferred. The case incorporates several components, including stakeholder mapping, participatory methods for assessing risk perception and community engagement, qualitative risk analysis, and policy-making.
The case study asks students to identify and define an open-ended risk problem in engineering and develop a socially acceptable solution, on the basis of limited and possibly contradictory information and differing perspectives. Additionally, students can gain awareness of broader responsibilitiesof engineers in the development of risky technologies, as well as the role of engineers in public debates and community engagement related to the adoption or development of risky technologies.
This case study addresses two of the themes from the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes fourth edition (AHEP4): The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 here and navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in three parts. If desired, a teacher can use Part one in isolation, but Part two and Part three develop and complicate 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:
apply their ethical judgement to a case study focused on the adoption of a risky technology;
understand the national and supranational policy context related to the development of novel technologies;
analyse engineering risks related to the development of a novel technology;
investigate the risk perception of the population about the development and operation of a risky technology;
debate how to factor risks as well as community preferences and risk perceptions into decision-making related to the development and operation of a risky technology;
identify the key stakeholder groups in the adoption and operation of risky technology in a local and national setting;
reflect on how risks may differ for different demographic groups and identify the stakeholder groups most vulnerable to the negative effects of risky technologies;
propose methods for communicating and engaging with stakeholders during the adoption, development and operation stages of a risky technology.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce a range of ethical considerations related to risk, risk perception and responsibility;
create a theoretical context for applying methods for qualitative risk analysis, stakeholder mapping and engagement;
provide an opportunity for group reflection and debate on the topic of a contested and polarising technology;
present the link between novel technologies and national or supranational targets and plans towards climate neutrality;
adapt the range and complexity of issues to the characteristics and levels of the class.
You are an early career engineer working in the civil nuclear industry for Ultra Nuclear. This is a major company overseeing the construction of new power stations that has a strong reputation as a leader in the field with no controversies associated with its activity. Indeed, you have been impressed with Ultra Nuclear’s vision that the transition to using more nuclear energy can significantly reduce carbon emissions, and their development of next-generation nuclear technologies. After two years of working on the strictly technical side of the business, you have been promoted to a project manager role which requires you to do more public engagement. Your manager has assigned your first major project which involves making the plans for the development of a new power plant.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity:Societal context – What is the context in which Ultra Nuclear operates? Identify the national and supranational policies and regulation in your country related to the adoption of nuclear energy. Reflect on the broader rationale given for the adoption of nuclear energy. Research the history of nuclear technological developments (including opposition and failures) in your country. When tracing the context, you may consider:
What is your country’s policy on nuclear energy?
What are your country’s main sources of energy?
What are your country’s targets for climate neutrality?
Will this target be reached?
What is the current and projected level of emissions?
How do these national targets fit with EU targets or targets of major economies?
2. Discussion: Personal values – What is your initial position on the adoption of nuclear energy? What are the advantages and disadvantages that you see for the adoption of nuclear energy in your country? What alternatives to nuclear energy do you deem more suitable and why?
3. Discussion: Risk perception – How do you perceive the risk of nuclear energy? How do your family and friends see this risk? How is nuclear energy portrayed in the media? Do you see any differences in how people around you see these risks? Why do you think this is so?
4. Activity: Risk mapping – Using a qualitative risk matrix, map the risks of a nuclear power plant.
Dilemma – Part two:
As it happens, this will be the first power plant established in the region where you were born, and your manager counts on your knowledge of the local community in addition to your technical expertise. To complete your project successfully, you are expected to ensure community approval for the new nuclear power plant. In order to do this, you will have to do some research to understand different stakeholders and their positions.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity:Stakeholder mapping – Who are all the groups that are involved in the scenario?
1.a. Activity:Read the article bySven Ove Hansson, which puts forward a method for categorising stakeholders as risk-exposed, beneficiaries, or decision-makers (including overlaps of the three categories). Place each stakeholder group in one of these categories.
1.b. Discussion:Why are some groups risk-exposed, others beneficiaries, and others decision-makers? Why is it undesirable to have stakeholder groups solely in one of the categories?
1.c. Discussion: What needs to change for some stakeholder groups to be not only in the category of risk-exposed, but also in the category of beneficiaries or decision-makers?
2. Activity: Stakeholder mapping– How does each stakeholder group view nuclear energy? For each stakeholder group identified, research the arguments they put forward, their positions and preferences in regard to the adoption of nuclear energy. In addition to the stakeholder groups previously identified, you may consider:
The Green party
Other political parties
Member of the public
Local residents
Advocates of other sources of energy
Environmental groups and activists (such as Extinction Rebellion, including local chapters, if they exist)
Human rights activists
Power plant workers
The Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate change deniers
The Ultra Nuclear company
Any other stakeholder?
For your research, you may consult the webpage of the stakeholder group (if it exists); any manifesto they present; mass media features (including interviews, podcasts, news items or editorials); flyers and posters.
3. Discussion: How convincing are these arguments according to you? Do you see any contradictions between the arguments put forward by different groups?
3.a. Discussion: Which group relies most on empirical data when presenting their position? Which stakeholders take the most extreme positions, according to you (radical either against or for nuclear energy), and why do you think this is so?
3.b. Discussion: In groups of five students, rank the stakeholders from those that provide the most convincing to the least convincing arguments, then discuss these rankings in plenary.
3.c. Roleplay (with students divided into groups): Each group is assigned a stakeholder, and gets to prepare and make the case for why their group is right, based on the empirical data and position put forward publicly by the group. The other groups grade on different criteria for how convincing the group is (such as 1. reliability of data, 2. rhetoric, 3. soundness of argument).
4. Guest speaker activity:The instructor can invite as a guest speaker a representative of one of the stakeholder groups to talk with students about the theme of nuclear energy. Students can prepare a written reflection after the session on the topic of “What I learned about risks from the guest speaker” or “What I learned about my responsibility as a future engineer in regard to the adoption of nuclear energy.”
Dilemma – Part three:
You arrive at the site of the intended power plant. You are received with mixed emotions. Although you are well liked and have many friends and relatives here, you are also warned that some residents are against the plans for the development of nuclear energy in the area. Several people with whom you’ve had informal chats have significant concerns about the power plant, and whether their health or safety will be negatively affected. At the same time, many people from the surrounding area do not yet know anything about the plans for building the nuclear site. In addition, in the immediate vicinity of the power plant site, the community hosts a small number of refugees who, having just arrived, are yet to be proficient in the language, and whose communication relies mostly on a translator. How will you ensure that this community is well informed of the plans for developing the power plant in their region and approves the plans of Ultra Nuclear? How will you engage with the community and towards what aims?
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: Research empirical data on the risk awareness and risk perception of public attitudes about nuclear energy, and sum up any findings that you find interesting or relevant for the case study.
1.a. Discussion: According to you, is risk awareness and perception the same thing? How do they differ as concepts? Considering the research you just did, is there a relation between people’s risk awareness and perception? What does this imply?
1.b Discussion: Do you identify any differences in the risk perception of the public (based on gender, age, geographical location, educational level)? Why do you think this is so?
1.c. Discussion: Does the public see the same risks about nuclear energy as technical experts do? Why is this so?
The entire island of Ireland, comprising The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (part of the UK), has never produced any electricity from nuclear power stations. Previous plans have been opposed as early as the 1970s through large public rallies, concerts, and demonstrations against the production of nuclear energy on the island. At the time, Carnsore Point was proposed as a site for the development of four nuclear reactors by the Electricity Supply Board. Public opposition led to the cancelling of this nuclear project and its replacement with a coal burning power station at Moneypoint. Since the 2000s there has been a renewed interest in the possibilities for producing nuclear energy on the island, in response to climate change and the need to ensure energy security. Surveys for identifying public acceptance and national forums have been proposed as ways to identify current perceptions and prospects for the development of nuclear energy. Nevertheless, nuclear energy in the Republic of Ireland is still prohibited by law, through the Electricity Regulation Act (1999). Nuclear energy is currently a contentious topic of debate, with many involved parties holding varying positions and arguments.
Example of stakeholders: The Irish government; the UK government; political parties; electricity supply board (state owned electricity company); BENE – Better Environment with Nuclear Energy (lobby group); Friends of the Irish Environment (environmental group), Friends of the Earth – Ireland (environmental group); The Union of Concerned Scientists; Wind Aware (lobby group); local community (specified further based on demographic characteristics, such as the Traveller community); scientists in the National Centre for Plasma Science & Technology at Dublin City University (university researchers).
Sources used for the description of the roles: Policy documents; official websites; institutional or group manifestos; news articles, editorials and other appearances in the media.
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: An ethical evaluation of the technology and its impacts.
Author: Dr Fiona Truscott (UCL).
Overview:
This enhancement is for an activity found in the Dilemma Part one, Point 1 section of the case: “Identify different aspects of the production process where ethical concerns may arise, from production to delivery to consumption.” Below are prompts for discussion questions and activities that can be used. 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.
In this group activity, students will act as consultants brought in by the Power to Food team to create an ethical evaluation of the technology and any impacts it may have throughout its lifetime. The aim here is for students to work together to discuss the potential ethical issues at each stage of the production process as well as thinking about how they might be addressed. Groups will need to do research, either in class or at home. Depending on the timeframe you may want to give them a starting point and some basic information found in the case study’s learning and teaching resources.
Suggested timeline:
Introduce students to the Power to Food case study (this could be pre-reading) and what they will be doing in their teams.
Some facilitated workshop time/space for Q&As; this may be more or less open-ended depending on where your students are in their programme. Depending on time, you may want to centre workshops around harms or values or a particular stage of the production process. You can use the questions below to structure a discussion session or get teams to look at alternative viewpoints.
Teams present/submit their work.
Team briefing:
You are a team of consultants brought in by the company who has developed Power to Food technology. Before they go to market they want to understand the ethical issues that may arise from the technology and address them if possible. They want you to look at the process as a whole and identify any ethical issues that might come up. They also want to know how easy these issues might be to address and want you to suggest potential ways to address them. You will need to provide the company with a briefing on your findings.
Tools:
It’s useful to give teams some frameworks through which they can do an analysis of the production process. One of those is to discuss who is harmed by the process at each stage. This is harm in the widest possible sense: physical, environment, political, reputational etc. What or who could be impacted and how? Another framework is the values of the people or entities involved in the process: what are they trying to achieve or what do they want and are any of these in conflict? Topics such as sustainability and accessibility also have an ethical dimension, and using these as a lens can help students to look at the problem from a different viewpoint.
Prompts for questions:
These are questions that you can get students to answer in class or suggest that they cover in an assessment. This could also be information you give the team so that they can use it as a foundation.
Identify the different stages of the Power to Food production process and the contexts that they happen in.
What harms might happen in each stage? Who or what might be harmed, how likely is it and what impact would it have?
What values might each person or entity that is involved with each have? What would they want and what are their responsibilities? Is there conflict between these?
Is there anything outside of harms and values that might cause an ethical issue?
What happens if you use a sustainability lens? Or a risk lens? What about accessibility?
Think about how you might address these ethical issues. Sort your identified ethical issues out into those that might be easy to address and those that aren’t.
Why are some easier than others to address?
Assessment:
This group activity lends itself to a few different assessment formats, depending on what fits with your programme and timeframe. The two key things to assess are whether students can understand and identify ethical issues across the whole Power to Food production process and whether they can discuss ways to address these issues and the complexities that can be involved in addressing these issues. These two things can be assessed separately; for example through a written report where teams discuss the potential issues and a presentation where they talk about how they might address these issues. Or one assessment can cover both topics. This can be a written report, a live or recorded presentation, a video, podcast or a poster. Teams being able to see other teams’ contributions is both a good way of getting them to discuss different viewpoints and makes for a fun session. You can get teams to present their final work or a draft to each other.
Depending on the timeframe, you may also want to build in some skills assessment too. The AAC&U’s VALUE rubrics are a great starting point for assessing skills and IPAC is a good tool for assessing teamwork via peer assessment.
Understanding and identification of ethics issues across the whole Power to Food production process
Has identified and understood context specific ethical issues across the production process. May have shown some understanding of how issues may impact on each other.
Has identified and understood broad/general ethical issues around production processes but hasn’t linked much to the specific context of the case study. Some stages may be more detailed than others.
Has not identified many or any ethical issues and seems to have not understood what we’re looking for.
Discussing ways to address these issues and the complexities that can be involved
Has identified context specific ways to address the ethical issues raised and has understood the potential complexities of addressing those ethical issues.
Has identified broad/general ways to address the ethical issues raised and made some reference to differing levels of complexity in addressing ethical issues.
Has not identified many or any ways to address the ethical issues raised and seems to have not understood what we’re looking for.
Communication
Very clear, engaging and easy to understand communication of the ethical issues involved and ways to address them. Right language level for the audience.
Generally understandable but not clear in places or uses the wrong level of language for the audience (assumes too much or not enough prior knowledge).
Difficult to understand the point being made either due to language used or disconnection to the point of the assessment or topic.
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.
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?
Stakeholder mapping is the visual process of laying out the people, also called stakeholders, who are involved with or affected by an issue and can influence a project, product or idea.
What is a stakeholder?
Stakeholders are people, groups or individuals who have the power to affect or be affected by a process, project or product.
Mapping out stakeholders will help you to:
Identify the stakeholders you need to collaborate with to ensure the success of the project.
Understand the different perspectives and points of view people have and how these experiences can have an impact on your project or product.
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.
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:
Manage closely.
Keep satisfied.
Keep informed.
Monitor.
3. Markers and pencils.
The activity:
Begin the activity by asking the students to write a list of stakeholders involved in or affected by the school chatbot.
Once the list of stakeholders is ready, ask the students to allocate each stakeholder according to one of the four categories.
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:
CEO
Developer
Student placement
Academy principal
Academy board
Academy students
Academy teachers
Teaching assistants
Parents
Funding body (Local Authority)
School administrators
School counsellors
Career advisors
Pastoral leads/wellbeing officers
Special needs (SEND) workers
GPs local practice
Media/local press
External staff contractors
Competitors (companies offering similar services).
Placement:
Place the sticky notes with the stakeholders you choose from the list and add them to the stakeholders’ map.
Map out your stakeholders on the grid to classify them by both their influence and interest in the project.
The position of the stakeholder on the grid shows you the actions that you could take with their engagement.
Guidance:
Each quadrant represents the following:
Category: Manage closely. These stakeholders have high power and are highly interested. Their level of interest is an opportunity to maximise the benefit of the project.
Category: Keep satisfied. These stakeholders have high power, but they are not very involved in the project.
Category: Keep informed. These stakeholders have low power but high interest. They are supporters of the project and can be helpful. Keep them involved.
Category: Monitor. These stakeholders have low power and low interest in the project. They only require monitoring.
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:
Stakeholders.
Motivations.
Assumptions.
Ethical/societal risks.
2. Sticky notes (or digital notes if online).
3. Markers and pencils.
The activity:
Using the sticky notes from the previous stakeholders activity, ask students to discuss some of the scenarios and situations that can arise as a result of using the School Chatbot.
Ask students to write these scenarios down and add them to Board 2, according to each category: stakeholders, motivations, assumptions, and ethical and societal risks.
Discuss some issues this project can bring and ask students to write them on sticky notes according to each category.
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:
What role does stakeholder X play in this project?
What is their main motivation?
Can you think of any obstacle or conflict this stakeholder could face?
What is their assumption about the use of the chatbot? (Positive or negative.)
What are the potential ethical/ societal risks of using a chatbot in this context?
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:
To develop a new revenue stream.
To help in developing the product.
The chatbot could present potential risks to students.
To obtain commercial gain.
To help students get access to online support 24/7.
Assumptions:
The product will help the company and the students. Any criticism shouldn’t be considered.
We can use data from students without any constraints.
The chatbot will improve the performance of students.
The institution will take precautions to prevent harm to students.
Criticism won’t be well received and it can result in losing my job.
Potential ethical and societal risks:
Lack of due diligence. Not enough understanding of the steps required to process data in an ethical manner.
Privacy risks. Data subjects (students) didn’t consent to their data being used in this context.
Risk of manipulation. Lack of engagement with the potential users can result in a lack of understanding of their needs and expectations.
Risk of surveillance. Students could be under constant monitoring, resulting in lack of freedom.
Risk of profiling. Use of sensitive historical and current data can reinforce biases and existing inequalities.
Conflict of interest.
Lack of psychological safety. Employees don’t feel empowered to express their views.
Lack of transparency/explainability. Potential lack of processes in place to explain how the algorithm works and makes decisions.
Using a human name can give the false impression of friendship, which can be used to manipulate users.
Over reliance on digital tools. This can undermine support provided by health care professionals and career advisors.
Using a gendered name (Alice) can reinforce negative stereotypes (for example, females as assistants).
Change of expectations. Constant access to information and resources can change the expectations teachers have about the student’s behaviours.
Lack of human agency/control. Students could modify their behaviours due to constant monitoring, resulting in a lack of agency and control over their environment.
Lack of involvement in the consultation that might result in poor advice/content.
Job instability and potential job losses.
Risk of disempowerment. Parents can be left out without access to information about their children’s wellbeing and performance.
Lack of diversity/consideration of a variety of students – for example students with special needs, neurodivergent students – that can result in standardised or harmful advice.
Move and match:
In the board below, you will find sticky notes with a list of stakeholders, motivations, assumptions, and ethical and societal risks.
Move and organise the sticky notes to match each category.
Discuss your options with the rest of the team and add new ethical and societal risks as you go.
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.
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.
Abstract: A project, developed jointly by UCL and engineers from ARUP, allowed students to work on redesigning the fire damaged roof of the Notre Dame Cathedral. Industry expertise complemented academic experience in civil engineering design to create a topical, relevant and creative project for students. The project combined technical learning in timber design with broader considerations such as costs, health and safety, buildability and environmental impacts. Final presentations being made to engineering teams at ARUP offices also developed wider professional skills.
Background
Following the 2019 fire in the Notre Dame Cathedral, Civil Engineering Students at University College London (UCL) were tasked with designing a replacement. The project was delivered, in collaboration with engineers from ARUP, within a Design module in Year 2 of the programme. The project was run as a design competition with teams competing against one another. The project built on learning and design project experience built up during years 1 and 2 of the course.
The collaboration with ARUP is a long-standing partnership. UCL academics and ARUP engineers have worked on several design projects for students across all years of the Civil Engineering Programme.
The Brief
Instead of designing a direct replacement for the roof the client wanted to create a modern, eye-catching roof extension which houses a tourist space that overlooks the city. The roof had to be constructed on the existing piers so loading limits were provided. The brief recognised the climate emergency and a key criterion for evaluation was the sustainability aspects of the overall scheme. For this reason, it also stipulated that the primary roof and extension structure be, as far as practicable, made of engineered timber.
Figure 1. Image from the project brief indicating the potential building envelopes for the roof design
Given the location all entries had to produce schemes that were quick to build, cause minimal disruption to the local population, not negatively impact on tourism and, most importantly, be safe to construct.
Requirements
Teams (of 6) were required to propose a minimum of 2 initial concept designs with an appraisal of each and recommendation for 1 design to be taken forward.
The chosen design was developed to include:
Full structural design; Calculations to Eurocodes, load path diagrams, member sizing, connection design, explanation of structural choices.
Buildability (cost breakdown, site logistics, consideration of context)
Health and Safety risks, impacts on design and control measures
Construction sequence
Sustainability summary inc. embodied carbon calculations
Teams had to provide a 10xA3 page report, a set of structural calculations, 2xA3 drawings and a 10-minute presentation.
Figure 2. Connection detail drawing by group 9
Delivery
Course material was delivered over 4 sessions with a final session for presentations:
Session 1: Project introduction and scheme designing
Session 2: Timber design
Session 3: Construction and constructability
Session 4: Fire Engineering and sustainability
Session 5: Student Presentations
Sessions were co-designed and delivered by a UCL academic and engineers from ARUP. The sessions involved a mixture of elements incl. taught, tutorial and workshop time. ARUP engineers also created an optional evening workshop at their (nearby) office were groups or individuals could meet with a practicing engineer for some advice on their design.
These sessions built on learning from previous modules and projects.
Learning / Skills Development
The project aimed to develop skills and learning in the following areas:
Technical skills relating to structural design using timber, embodied energy calculations, drawing and H&S risk assessment.
Design skills relating to consideration of the site, its context and the need, creativity and assessing ideas, consideration and overlapping of numerous disciplines, design iteration and improvement.
Professional skills in relation to communicating with clients, producing reports to a professional standard, presenting a project, working in teams, organising resources, etc.
Visiting the ARUP office and working with practicing engineers also enhanced student understanding of professional practice and standards.
Benefits of Collaborating
The biggest benefit to the collaboration was the reinforcement of design approaches and principles, already taught by academics, by practicing engineers. This adds further legitimacy to the approaches in the minds of the students and is evidenced through the application of these principles in student outputs.
Figure 3. Development of design concepts by group 12
The increased range in technical expertise that such a collaboration brings provides obvious benefit and the increased resource means more staff / student interaction time (there were workshops where it was possible to have one staff member working with every group at the same time).
Working with an aspirational partner (i.e. somewhere the students want to work as graduates) provides extra motivation to improve designs, to communicate them professionally and impress the team. Working and presenting in the offices of ARUP also helped to develop an understanding of professional behaviour.
Reflections and Feedback
Reflections and feedback from all staff involved was that the work produced was of a high quality. It was pleasing to see the level of creativity that the students applied in their designs. Feedback from students gathered through end of module review forms suggested that this was due to the level of support available which allowed them to develop more complex and creative designs fully.
Wider feedback from students in the module review was very positive about the project. They could see that it built on previous experiences from the course and enjoyed that the project was challenging and relevant to the real world. They also valued the experiences of working in a practicing design office and working with practicing engineers from ARUP. Several students posted positively about the project on their LinkedIn profiles, possibly suggesting a link between the project and employability in the minds of the students.
Figure 4. Winning design summary diagram by group 12
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.
Keywords: Civil Engineering Design, Building Information Modelling, BIM, Digital Engineering, Industry, Collaboration
Abstract: This project, developed jointly with industry partners at Multiplex, allowed Civil Engineering students at UCL to develop their understanding and technical skills around the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) on civil engineering projects and related software. Students worked on a model of an emergency shelter (designed by UCL alumnus) and were required to consider the relevant parties involved (technical and non-technical), the information they require and how to utilise the model to organise and communicate this information effectively.
Background
Digital engineering tools and Building Information Modelling (BIM) are increasingly becoming important features of modern construction projects. The design teaching team in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (CEGE) at University College London (UCL) recognised the need to embed this practice into parts of the design teaching delivery for students on the Civil Engineering undergraduate programmes.
UCL and Mulitplex (civil engineering contractor) had been partnering on school outreach activities for several years. A discussion at such an event led to a realisation that there was good alignment on how these topics should be taught, with a focus on information and communication rather than modelling. Staff at UCL had already started developing a project that would involve using elements of BIM in the design development of an emergency shelter for humanitarian relief and that the project should encourage students to think about the information and communication aspects of this. The digital engineering team at Multiplex then agreed to join the project and provide technical assistance, to develop and deliver teaching materials and to provide real life examples and case studies to supplement the project.
The Brief
Students were provided with a pre-developed REVIT® model of an emergency shelter design made, predominantly, from timber. The shelter had been designed by a UCL alumnus during their time as a UCL student and agreement was granted to use it for this project. Students were presented with an imagined scenario that they were working for a charity that was planning to build 10 of these shelters in Haiti to assist with humanitarian relief effort following an earthquake. The students needed to consider which parties would need to be communicated with, what information they would need, how this information could be communicated with them and how the digital model could assist with this process.
Figure 1. Image of Emergency Shelter model in REVIT®
Students were encouraged to consider (but not limited to) included:
Design information (limits, assumptions, etc)
Commercial
Construction (programme, logistics and sequencing)
Health and safety
Environmental factors
Handover information and future maintenance requirements
Students were required to research the relevant information and populate the REVIT® model appropriately and professionally.
Requirements
Teams (of 6) were required to provide a 10xA3 page report that would run through each of the potential parties to communicated with, what information they would need and how the model would be used to enable this communication. They also needed to describe any assumptions that were made and how information was selected during the research phase. They needed to highlight the critical thinking that had been carried out in relation to sources of information and its suitability and reliability.
Figure 2. Use of model to explain construction sequence
Teams also needed to submit their completed REVIT® model files for inspection as well as an 8 min video presentation that would:
Present the completed model and show competency in finding the relevant information for different elements
Showcase how the model enhanced communication to each of the relevant parties
Explain how the team collaborated to produce a justified proposal
Discuss problems encountered and how they were overcome
Figure 3. External view of model
Delivery
Course material was delivered over 4 sessions with a final session for presentations:
Session 1: Project introduction and software introduction
Session 2: (i) Information and exporting in REVIT®. (ii) Commercial overview
Session 3: (i) Construction and Logistics. (ii) Health, safety and environmental factors
Session 4: (i) Handover requirements. (ii) Maintainable assets. (iii) Building management
Session 5: Student presentations
Sessions were co-designed and delivered by a UCL academic and a digital manager from Multiplex. The sessions involved a mixture of elements incl. taught, tutorial and workshop time that allowed students to work in their groups.
Learning / Skills Development
The project aimed to develop skills and learning in the following areas:
Improve REVIT® / software skills
Understand the benefits of BIM to a multi-party construction project particularly in relation to information and communication.
Improve construction knowledge
Recognise that digital technology isn’t a replacement for engineering knowledge and input.
Improve employability of students by equipping them with relevant and up-to-date construction tools and techniques.
Benefits of Collaborating
The first benefit was the inspirational aspect of working on a shelter design that had been produced by a former UCL student. This Alumnus contributed to the introduction session by running through their design and this helped students understand just how much had been achieved by someone in their position.
The collaboration with Multiplex’s digital team brought obvious benefits to the technical skills development but also benefitted student understanding by showing how these skills are being used on live construction sites. The process of learning from and presenting to practicing construction professionals also allowed students to develop key professional behavioural skills that help develop and enhance employability.
Reflections and Feedback
Reflections and feedback from all staff involved was that the work produced was of a high quality and that this demonstrated an understanding of the project objectives from the student perspective. It was also apparent that students were becoming adept at using REVIT® software effectively and appropriately.
Wider feedback from students in the module review was very positive about the project and that it had improved their understanding of the role of digital technologies in the construction industry. Students said in feedback “BIM has helped us to look at all aspects of the design and to figure out more stuff in the same amount of time,” and, “Doing it this way [REVIT model] means you can see what you think might be a risk to the workers more easily.”
Several students posted positively about the project on their LinkedIn profiles, possibly suggesting a link between the project and employability in the minds of the students.
2 of the students successfully applied for summer internships with Multiplex’s digital team immediately following the project and were able to build on their digital engineering skills further.
The project was featured by trade magazine BIMPlus which ran an article on the project showcasing the relative novelty and uniqueness of the approach taken.
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: Professor Thomas Lennerfors (Uppsala University); Nina Fowler (Uppsala University); Johnny Rich (Engineering Professors’ Council); Professor Dawn Bonfield MBE (Aston University); Professor Chike Oduoza (University of Wolverhampton); Steven Kerry (Rolls-Royce); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Alternative food production.
Engineering disciplines: Energy; Chemical engineering.
Ethical issues: Sustainability; Social responsibility.
Professional situations: Public health and safety; Personal/professional reputation; Falsifying or misconstruing data / finances; Communication.
Educational level: Advanced.
Educational aim: Practise ethical reasoning. Ethical reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events in order to evaluate, and respond, to problems in a fair and responsible way.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case involves an engineer navigating multiple demands on a work project. The engineer must evaluate trade-offs between social needs, technical specifications, financial limitations, environmental needs, legal requirements, and safety. Some of these factors have obvious ethical dimensions, and others are more ambiguous. The engineer must also 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 AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 hereand 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 / technological development 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 / technological development;
address approaches in order to resolve interpersonal and/or professional conflict;
integrate human and animal consumption industry codes and/or specifications;
integrate technical aspects of biochemical engineering;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Power-to-X (P2X) describes a number of pathways for the transformation of electricity to alternative forms. This can be utilised for storing energy for later use, in order to balance periods of excesses and deficits resulting from the use of renewable energy technologies. It can also be used in applications that do not use electricity, such as through the transformation of electricity to hydrogen or other gases for industrial use.
One area that has seen significant development in recent years is power-to-food (PtF). This pathway results in CO2 being transformed, through chemical or biological processes powered by renewable energy, into food. One such process uses electrolysis and the Calvin cycle to create hydrocarbons from CO2, water and bacteria. The end result is a microbial protein, a substance that could be used in animal feed. Ultimately, the technology could produce a meat alternative suitable for human consumption, further reducing the carbon emissions produced by intensive animal farming.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: Identify the potential harms and risks of this technology, both objective and subjective. For example, could the shift of food production from soil to chemical industries concentrate power in the hands of a few? What public perceptions or cultural values might impact the acceptance or uptake of the technology?
2. Discussion: Wider context – What social, technological, economic, environmental, political, or legal factors might need to be considered in order to implement this technology?
3. Activity: Research companies that are currently developing P2X technologies. Which industries and governments are promoting P2X? How successful have early projects been? What obstacles exist in upscaling?
4. Activity: Undertake a technical activity in the area of biochemical engineering related to the storing and transforming of renewable energy.
Dilemma – Part one:
You are the Chief Technical Officer at a company that has developed PtF technology that can convert CO2 to edible fatty acids (or triglycerides). The potential of CO2 capture is attractive to many stakeholders, but the combination of carbon reduction tied in with food production has generated positive media interest. The company also intends to establish its PtF facility near a major carbon polluter, that will reduce transport costs. However, some nearby residents are concerned about having a new industrial facility in their area, and have raised additional concerns about creating unsafe food.
As part of the process to commercialise this technology, you have been tasked with completing an ethical assessment. This includes an analysis of the technology’s short and long-term effects in a commercial application.
2. Discussion: What cultural values might impact the ethical assessment? Does trust play a role in our ethical and consumption decisions? What internal logics / business goals might steer, or influence, the acceptance of various ethical considerations?
3. Discussion: Which areas of the ethical assessment might stakeholders be most interested in, or concerned about, and why?
4. Discussion: Does the choice of location for PtF facilities influence the ethical assessment? What problems could this PtF technology solve?
5. Discussion: What competing values or motivations might come into conflict in this scenario? What codes, standards, or authoritative bodies might be relevant to this? What is the role of ethics in technology development?
6. Activity: Assemble a bibliography of relevant professional codes, standards, and authorities.
7. Activity: Research the introduction of novel foods throughout history and / or engineering innovations in food production.
8. Activity: Write up the ethical assessment of the business case, and include findings from the previous questions and research.
Dilemma – Part two:
You deliver your ethical assessment to your manager. Shortly afterwards you are asked to edit the report to remove or downplay some ethical issues you have raised. The company leadership is worried that potential investors in an upcoming financing round may be dissuaded from investing in the company if you do not edit these sections.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Professional and ethical responsibilities – What are the ethical implications of editing or not editing the report? What consequences could this type of editing have? Think about stakeholders such as the company, potential investors and society.
2. Discussion: Wider considerations of business ethics – How would you recognise an ethical organisation? What are its characteristics? What is the role of ethics in business?
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 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 AHEP 4 hereand 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: Professor Sarah Hitt SFHEA (NMITE); Professor Raffaella Ocone OBE FREng FRSE (Heriot Watt University); Professor Thomas Lennerfors (Uppsala University); Claire Donovan (Royal Academy of Engineering); Isobel Grimley (Engineering Professors’ Council).
Topic: Developing customised algorithms for student support.
Engineering disciplines: Computing, AI, Data.
Ethical issues: Bias, Social responsibility, Risk, Privacy.
Professional situations: Informed consent, Public health and safety, Conflicts with leadership / management, Legal implications.
Educational level: Beginner.
Educational aim: Develop ethical sensitivity. Ethical sensitivity is the broad cognisance of ethical issues and the ability to see how these might affect others.
Learning and teaching notes:
This case study involves the employees of a small software start-up that is creating a customised student support chatbot for a Sixth Form college. The employees come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives on the motivations behind their work, which leads to some interpersonal conflict. The team must also identify the ethical issues and competing values that arise in the course of developing their algorithm.
This case study addresses two of AHEP 4’s themes: The Engineer and Society (acknowledging that engineering activity can have a significant societal impact) and Engineering Practice (the practical application of engineering concepts, tools and professional skills). To map this case study to AHEP outcomes specific to a programme under these themes, access AHEP 4 hereand navigate to pages 30-31 and 35-37.
The dilemma in this case is presented in two parts which build in complexity and navigate between personal, professional, and societal contexts. 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. Pre-reading ‘Ethics of Care and Justice’ is recommended, though not required, for engaging with Part two. The case allows teachers the option to stop at multiple points for questions and / or activities as desired.
Learners have the opportunity to:
identify ethical and legal issues related to emerging technologies;
apply codes of ethics to an engineering ethics dilemma;
consider different perspectives on an ethical issue and what values inform those perspectives;
practise professional communication related to ethical dilemmas.
Teachers have the opportunity to:
introduce ethics of care and ethics of justice;
integrate technical content for developing software and algorithms;
highlight strategies to deal with conflicts between management, clients, and employees;
explore wider contexts and implications of engineering technologies;
informally evaluate students’ critical thinking and communication skills.
Exaba is a small, three-person software startup. Like all small businesses, it has been struggling with finances during the pandemic. The company began selling its services across a variety of industry sectors but is now trying to expand by developing software solutions for the growing education technology sector.
Ivan, Exaba’s founder and CEO, was thrilled to be contracted by a growing local Sixth Form College in North West England, NorthStar Academy, to create a chatbot that will optimise student support services. These services include ensuring student safety and wellbeing, study skills advice, careers guidance, counselling, and the identification for the need and implementation of extra learning support. It is such a large project that Ivan has been able to bring in Yusuf, a university student on placement from a computer systems programme, to help Nadja, Exaba’s only full-time software engineer. Ivan views the chatbot contract as not only a financial windfall that can help get the company back on track, but as the first project in a new product-development revenue stream.
Nadja and Yusuf have been working closely with the NorthStar Academy’s Principal, Nicola, to create ‘Alice’: the custom student-support chatbot to ensure that she is designed appropriately and is fit for purpose. Nicola has seen growing evidence that chatbots can identify when students are struggling with a range of issues from attendance to anxiety. She has also seen that they can be useful in helping administrators understand what students need, how to help them more quickly, and where to invest more resources to make support most effective.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: What moral or ethical issues might be at stake or arise in the course of this project?
2. Discussion: What professional or legal standards might apply to the development of Alice?
3. Discussion: What design choices might Nadja and Yusuf have to consider as they build the chatbot software in order for it to conform to those standards?
4. Discussion: is there anything risky about giving cognitive chatbots human names in general, or a female name specifically?
6. Activity: Research any codes of ethics that might apply to AI in education, or policies / laws that apply to controlling and processing student data.
After undertaking work to ensure GDPR compliance through transparency, consent, and anonymisation of the data harvested by interactions with Alice, Nadja and Yusuf are now working on building the initial data set that the chatbot will call upon to provide student support. The chatbot’s information to students can only be as good as the existing data it has available to draw from. To enable this, Nicola has agreed to provide Exaba with NorthStar Academy’s existing student databases that span many years and cover both past and present students. While this data – including demographics, academic performances, and interactions with support services – is anonymised, Yusuf has begun to feel uncomfortable. One day, when the entire team was together discussing technical challenges, Yusuf said “I wonder what previous students would think if they found out that we were using all this information about them, without their permission?”
Ivan pointed out, “Nicola told us it was okay to use. They’re the data controllers, so it’s their responsibility to resolve that concern, not ours. We can’t tell them what to do with their own data. All we need to be worried about is making sure the data processing is done appropriately.”
Nadja added, “Plus, if we don’t use an existing data set, Alice will have to learn from scratch, meaning she won’t be as effective at the start. Wouldn’t it be better for our chatbot to be as intelligent and helpful as possible right away? Otherwise, she could put existing students at a disadvantage.”
Yusuf fell silent, figuring that he didn’t know as much as Ivan and Nadja. Since he was just on a placement, he felt that it wasn’t his place to push the issue any further with full-time staff.
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Discussion: Expand upon Yusuf’s feelings of discomfort. What values or principles is this emotion drawing on?
2. Discussion: Do you agree with Yusuf’s perspective, or with Ivan’s and Nadja’s? Why?
3. Discussion: Does / should Yusuf have the right to voice any concerns or objections to his employer?
4. Discussion: Do / should previous NorthStar students have the right to control what the academy does with their data? To what extent, and for how long?
5. Discussion: Is there / should there be a difference between how data about children is used and that of adults? Why?
6. Discussion: Should a business, like Exaba, ever challenge its client, like NorthStar Academy, about taking potentially unethical actions?
7. Technical activity: Undertake a technical activity such as creating a process flow diagram, pieces of code and UI / UX design that either obscure or reinforce consent.
8. Activity: Undertake argument mapping to diagram and expand on the reasoning and evidence used by Yusuf, Nadja, and Ivan in their arguments.
9. Activity: Apply ethical theories to those arguments.
10. Discussion: What ethical principles are at stake? Are there potentially any conflicts or contradictions arising from those principles?
Dilemma – Part two:
Nicola, too, was under pressure. The academy’s Board had hired her as Principal to improve NorthStar’s rankings in the school performance table, to get the college’s finances back on track, and support the government efforts at ‘levelling up’ This is why one of Nicola’s main specifications for Alice is that she be able to flag students at risk of not completing their qualifications. Exaba will have to develop an algorithm that can determine what those risk factors are.
In a brainstorming session Nadja began listing some ideas on the whiteboard. “Ethnic background, family income, low marks, students who fit that profile from the past and ultimately dropped out, students who engaged with support services a lot, students with health conditions . . .”
“Wait, wait, wait,” Yusuf said. “This feels a little bit like profiling to me. You know, like we think kids from certain neighbourhoods are unlikely to succeed so we’re building this thing to almost reinforce that they don’t.”
“The opposite is true!” Ivan exclaimed. “This algorithm will HELP exactly those students.”
“I can see how that’s the intention,” Yusuf acknowledged. “But I’ve had so many friends and neighbours experience well-intentioned but not appropriate advice from mentors and counsellors who think the only solution is for everyone to complete qualifications and go to university. This is not the best path for everybody!”
Nadja had been listening carefully. “There is something to what Yusuf is saying: Is it right to nudge students to stay in a programme that’s actually not a best fit for them? Could Alice potentially give guidance that is contrary to what a personal tutor, who knows the student personally, might advise? I don’t know if that’s the sort of algorithm we should develop.”
At this point Ivan got really frustrated with his employees: “This is the proprietary algorithm that’s going to save this company!” he shouted. “Never mind the rights and wrongs of it. Think of the business potential, not to mention all the schools and students this is going to help. The last thing I need is a mutiny from my team. We have the client’s needs to think about, and that’s it.”
Optional STOP for questions and activities:
1. Activity: compare an approach to this case through the ethics of care versus the ethics of justice. What different factors come into play? How should these be weighed? Might one approach lead to a better course of action than another? Why?
2. Discussion: what technical solutions, if any, could help mitigate Yusuf and Nadja’s concerns?
3. Activity: imagine that Ivan agrees that this is a serious enough concern that they need to address it with Nicola. Role play a conversation between Ivan and Nicola.
4. Activity: undertake a classroom debate on whether or not Alice has the potential to reinforce negative stereotypes. Variations include alley debate, stand where you stand, adopt and support opposite instinct.
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
Theme: 
