Thesis (M.A.)--Oregon State University, 2010. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-80). Also available on the World Wide Web.

M.Ing. / Engineering is a combination of natural and human science skills and expertise. Engineers are required to satisfy the needs of their customers at a human science level, yet they are also expected to solve problems that require meticulous calculation at a natural science level. Engineers who can negotiate with customers, but who do not have the competencies to solve complex problems, will find the profession extremely complicated and frustrating. On the other hand if engineers have developed the required skills to tackle and solve the most intricate problems but are unable to communicate and interact with their clients, they will soon realise that they are isolated from the community. Because of the workload associated with the curriculum for engineering studies at tertiary level, academic staff find it difficult to include topics other than hard core engineering in the curriculum. Potential engineers have to realise that they are entering a profession that requires -a- lifelong learning commitment to stay abreast of developments, especially because of the explosion of developments in high technology. The challenge lies with educational institutions, employers and the engineering fraternity alike to ensure that qualified engineers, technologists and technicians are wellbalanced, highly-skilled professionals with the ability to interact with the public at large. Engineering students need to be exposed to a wide range of additional skills, such as motivational, communication, negotiating, financial and psychological. A subject that is seldom addressed in educational institutions is ethics and its role in an engineer's life. Because ethics is based on various complex foundations, such as the various religions, cultural backgrounds and different values and norms of groups of people, academic staff tend to avoid broaching the topic. This dissertation has probed the complexities of ethics and how it differs depending on the background of a specific group of people or a specific profession. It further investigated the perceived needs among engineering students and qualified engineers so that engineering students can be exposed to ethics and the importance of a basic knowledge of ethics before they can be regarded as fully-fledged engineers. Results of a market research has revealed that qualified engineers and engineering students are aware of the importance of an expanded curriculum that would include the additional subjects mentioned earlier. The findings correlate with similar results obtained in a market research in United States of America. Literature claimed that Europe was lagging behind USA with regard to the inclusion of ethics in their curriculum but that it was rectifying the situation. he issue under discussion is that all role-players in South Africa should join forces to incorporate ethics in the curriculum of tertiary education institutions and in the in-house-training programmes of businesses. This programme can later be extended to include other human science skills. Control measures should be introduced to ensure the work done in South Africa by the engineering fraternity is in line with international standards. This will enable South Africa to remain a competitive role-player in the global market.

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 1995. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [71]-72).

Knowledge of the responsibilities of engineers is key to answering ethical questions about the work of engineers, because the decisions made by engineers often have ethical dimensions and implications. Engineers develop and implement technologies that influence and shape the way we live, at times in manners unanticipated by those who develop such technologies. To be able to answer important ethical questions, it is essential first to define what the responsibilities of engineers are. This paper defines the responsibilities of engineers by considering what constitutes the nature of engineering as a particular form of activity. Specifically, this paper focuses on the responsibilities of engineers qua engineers, where that refers to the duties acquired in virtue of being a member of a group. In order to answer this question, this paper examines the practice of engineering, drawing on the idea of practices developed by philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and showing how the elements of a practice are important for finding and justifying the responsibilities of engineers. To demonstrate the contribution that knowledge of the responsibilities of engineers makes to engineering ethics, a case study is discussed at the end of the paper which deals with ethical questions in the discipline of structural engineering. The circumstances surrounding the failure of the Sleipner A platform off the coast of Norway in 1991 will be discussed to demonstrate how the responsibilities of engineers can be derived from knowledge of the nature of engineering and its context.

This study listens to the contributions of recent graduates from the University of Victoria’s Bachelor of Engineering Program, hearing their understanding of ethics and equity, and how they experienced learning this in the program. This is done with consideration of how their understanding and experiences might inform curricular and pedagogical improvements in the experience of learning ethics and equity. Using a case study of these participants and their experiences at the University of Victoria, this research takes into account the context of engineering education accreditation standards and the current state of the curriculum that the participants completed. The findings suggest that participants have a limited understanding of what ethics and equity means, both personally and professionally. Participants also found it difficult to recall learning occasions for ethics and equity. Recommendations are made for curricular reform, taking an integrated and across the discipline approach to teaching ethics and equity to undergraduate engineers. / Graduate

<p dir="ltr"><b>Background:</b> Though ethics has been recognized as an important aspect of engineering education, there is not a definitive consensus on what ethical engineering is. This dissertation seeks to understand what constitutes ethical behaviors in engineering by distinguishing them from other normative behaviors.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Purpose:</b> This study aims to understand what ethical engineering looks like in practice by addressing the research question: To what extent do engineering ethics experts agree when normative behaviors in engineering are also ethical in nature? While definitions of what constitutes ethical engineering practice are varied in the literature and have been debated theoretically by scholars, this study adopts an empirical approach to understand how experts in engineering ethics conceptualize ethical behaviors in engineering.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Methods:</b> This dissertation study uses a Delphi process to build consensus among experts on what behaviors constitute ethical engineering practice. The Delphi panel consisted of 27 scholars, educators, and practicing engineers with expertise in engineering ethics who provided iterative feedback across three rounds of data collection through questionnaires. Round 1 generated 25 statements of normative behaviors in engineering. Round 2 prompted panelists to judge the ethicality of each behavior. Round 3 presented panelists with the aggregated responses and opinions from the previous round and invited them to revise their judgments.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Findings:</b><b> </b>The results of the Delphi process identified areas of consensus and disagreement among the panel on which normative behaviors in engineering are generally considered ethical or non-ethical in nature. Of the 25 statements, panelists agreed that 20 of the behaviors tended to be ethical in nature and one behavior tended to be non-ethical in nature, while the remaining four statements did not yield consensus.</p><p dir="ltr"><b>Contribution:</b> This research aims to provide clarity around what constitutes ethical behaviors in engineering by differentiating them conceptually from other normative behaviors in engineering practice. The empirical approach taken in this study has implications for research, teaching, and assessment in engineering ethics education. Specifically, the questionnaire developed through the Delphi process can be deployed to study engineering students and practitioners to make broader claims about what is ethical in engineering.</p>

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on March 8, 2010). The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Dissertation advisor: Dr. Rose M. Marra. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

<p>There is a large variation in the quantity and quality of ethics that U.S. engineering students learn. Why is there so much room for improving the state of engineering ethics education in the United States? Recognizing the interplay between individual agency, structural factors, and historical contingency, this dissertation is a three-part approach to answering that question – I present three distinct, mutually informative threads for studying engineering ethics education from different angles. The first thread is an historical approach. The second thread is an empirical study of the mental models that faculty members have regarding engineering ethics education. The third thread applies theoretical constructs from political science and economics to analyze structural factors impinging on engineering ethics education.</p><p><br></p> <p>From the studies, first we see that trailblazers of engineering ethics developed the new knowledge required of this emerging field through interpersonal relationships; they leveraged existing organizations and built new institutional mechanisms for sharing knowledge and creating a community of scholars and an engineering ethics curriculum; they utilized resources from supportive colleagues and administrators to corporate, governmental, and nongovernmental funding that legitimated their work. Their efforts ultimately created pedagogical materials, prevalent ideas, publication outlets, meetings, and foundations that not only contributed to the current state of U.S. engineering ethics education but also the launching point for future generations to build upon and continue developing that state. Second, mapping the mental models of engineering ethics education among engineering faculty members provided a typology for analyzing the state of engineering ethics education and places where one can expect to find variation, deepening our understanding of the state of engineering ethics education. Third, outlining a theory of the political economy of engineering education highlighted factors that could be influencing curricular and pedagogical decisions in engineering departments. Furthermore, I supplemented the outlined theoretical phenomena with data from the mental models interviews in order to provide a proof of concept and relevant grounding for the phenomena.</p><p><br></p> <p>In sum, faculty members make decisions based on their mental models. Structural factors shape the broader environment and institutions in which those faculty members operate. Those structures and institutions change over time, leading to the current state of engineering ethics education. Having all three pieces has provided a more complete understanding of the state of U.S. engineering ethics education.</p><p><br></p> <p>Ultimately, my dissertation accomplishes multiple goals. First, I have provided additional evidence for understanding and explaining the qualitative and quantitative discrepancies of engineering ethics coverage in U.S. undergraduate engineering education at multiple levels of analysis. Second, I have amassed evidence that can inform future research efforts. Third, I have demonstrated the use of certain theories and methods infrequently employed in engineering education research. Finally, I have outlined potential new avenues for interdisciplinary research, especially at the nexus of political economy, education, engineering, and society. </p>