Summary
Highlights
Glenn Miller, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Texas A&M University, introduces himself and the university. Texas A&M is a large, tier-one research institution with a significant engineering college. He then details the history and evolution of their engineering ethics course, which became mandatory for all engineering graduates in 2003, and highlights the shift in course objectives to include cultural diversity.
Miller elaborates on the specific module dedicated to international engineering, subtitled 'Working in and between diverse cultures.' He explains the concept of 'culture as given' versus 'culture as constructed,' and introduces Shalom Schwartz's seven dimensions of culture and David Thomas and Kerr Inkson's cultural intelligence framework. The module aims to distinguish between bribery, extortion, and grease payments, and explores the theoretical and practical questions arising from cultural variances, including moral realism and cultural relativism. The module also uses case studies like the Boeing 737 Max and Flint water crisis to address developed-country bias and the societal impact of engineering.
The Q&A session addresses questions about the global applicability of topics, the assessment methods for the international engineering module (primarily through exams), and the weight of the course in the overall graduation mark. Miller discusses the fundamental challenge for students in critically examining their own beliefs and assumptions when encountering diverse ethical contexts.
Alexandra Casagova discusses the emerging state of engineering ethics education in Russia. She outlines the historical context of the engineering profession's status, from periods of high esteem to crises, and the unique challenges in its institutionalization. Technical universities are mostly state-funded, and educational programs are regulated by federal standards that align with ABET criteria regarding social and environmental responsibility, though their curriculum structure differs. She notes that philosophy and social science courses are being replaced by elective 'soft skills' courses, raising questions about the future of engineering ethics.
Casagova illustrates the adaptation process with the example of a research institute at an oil and gas university in Russia, focusing on how local agendas and broader institutional contexts shape research and teaching. She highlights the revival of the concept of 'professional mission' in engineering, which involves balancing diverse objectives and is seen as a process of defining meaning rather than a fixed definition. This concept often resonates with aspirational and virtue ethics while drawing on historical Russian engineering cultures.
The Q&A session delves into the content of the 'professional mission' in the Russian context, distinguishing it from Western notions of vocation. Questions arise about the influence of ABET criteria on Russian federal standards and the increasing emphasis on competence-based models and soft skills, which are replacing traditional philosophy and humanities courses.
Chin-Shu introduces four major approaches to global engineering ethics. The first approach advocates for global codes of ethics, arguing for universal applicability. The second, functionalist approach, views engineering as a globally uniform culture, making national differences less significant. The third, cultural differences approach, sees engineering as a localized practice and emphasizes cross-cultural competence. The fourth, global ethics and justice approach, focuses on universal ethical values and human rights, especially in underserved communities.
Chin-Shu poses several reflective questions for engineering ethics educators: Should all four approaches be included in the curriculum? Should global engineering ethics move from a marginalized to a central role in engineering education? How can the value of global ethics be justified to students not expecting to work internationally? How does the current global political environment (e.g., US-China relations) impact global engineering ethics education? And how can local engineering problems be taught in globally relevant ways?
The discussion focuses on the distinction between morality (context-dependent) and ethics (rational and global), and the challenge of upholding global values when freedom of expression might be limited, particularly in international collaborations. The conversation highlights the complexities of political and cultural differences and the importance of fostering critical thinking rather than simply providing answers.
Satya Sundar Setti discusses the teaching of engineering ethics at IIT Madras, a premier institution in India. He explains that it's a compulsory course for B.Tech and dual degree students, aimed at developing professional behavior and ethical decision-making. He highlights the heterogeneous cultural background of students and the institution's commitment to international standards despite the national accrediting body (AICTE) not mandating the course for all engineering colleges.
Satya details the curriculum, which includes ethical theories, national and international case studies (both successes and disasters), and contemporary socio-political economic problems. The course covers both microethics (individual engineer decisions) and macroethics (social responsibility and artifacts). A team-teaching model involving philosophy and engineering faculty is used for large classes (around 450 students). Instructional strategies include lectures, video clips, case study discussions, and group presentations to encourage active learning and peer interaction. Assessment involves presenting on case studies relevant to their engineering discipline, focusing on ethical theories, problems, and their resolution using codes of ethics. The goal is to inform students that engineering designs and tools are not value-neutral and carry moral, social, and professional responsibilities.
The Q&A session addresses how large classes manage small group discussions and presentations. Satya also clarifies their approach to case studies, moving beyond a sole focus on engineering disasters to include examples of successful engineering projects to motivate students, while still acknowledging the lessons learned from tragedies.