IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2013 - 61

on specialization and compartmentalization, where the student is
basically isolated from the humanities curriculum.
This isolation does not mean
that the student has no opinions or
principles; students arrive in the
classroom fully (and reflexively)
immersed in their culture's particular moral perspective and value
system. Compartmentalization and
isolation as well as tremendous
diversity in both cultural perspective and educational background
pose a particularly challenging
problem for instructors, curriculum
designers, textbook authors, and students taking courses in engineering
ethics.

Engaging the
Intercultural Classroom
It is the duty of those in the field
of engineering ethics to engage the
student and integrate diverse ethical perspectives into the curriculum. According to Dragga [7], a "...
comprehensive understanding of
differences in ethical perspectives
is necessary to achieve ethical intercultural technical communication."
unfortunately, the lack of globalization and intercultural perspective is
one of the unresolved problems facing ethics research and education
[8]. The diversity of the engineering
classroom requires a culturally sensitive curriculum in order to benefit
students at the greatest level. Sapienza [9] suggests that culturally
heterogeneous groups require comprehensive consideration outside
the current paradigms in order to
accomplish extensive inclusion.
How can the instructor achieve
intercultural understanding and
communicate ethical methodologies
without ostracizing individual value
systems and the students who honor
these values? How do instructors
integrate the intercultural diversity
of the engineering student into the
ethics classroom, thereby increasing ethical understanding and
global engagement? One approach
is to survey the engineering students

regarding cultural and ethical perspectives and incorporate these
perspectives into an expansive usercentered curriculum based on the
diverse population represented by
the engineering students.

Process and
Curriculum Development
Iterative Analysis
For this preliminary study, an iterative analysis was implemented in
order to determine content possibilities for a truly user-centered,
student-centered, and therefore
diversity-centered, engineering ethics course. Sixty-eight engineering students from two universities,
Florida Institute of Technology and
Texas A&M at Qatar, were asked to
attend and participate in a short ethics course consisting of an overview
of core ethical systems, an explanation of the judgment map, a case
study evaluation, and a final written survey. The ethics overview was
designed as a ninety-minute course.
The survey contained both specific as
well as open-ended questions regarding the student's ethical perspective.
As a preliminary study, the questions
were generalized to give students a
wide range of possible answers,
leaving room for diverse ethical
approaches and ideologies. The engineering students were surveyed and
the ethical perceptions and needs of
the students were tracked to determine applicable and inclusive content for an engineering ethics course.
Colby and Sullivan [10] report that
tracking systems are often vague as
well as inaccurate. With this shortfall
in mind, tracking specific opinions
and ethical views was made central
to this evaluation in order to avoid a
vague overview.

Core Ethical Systems
As a starting point for the experimental course, an introduction of core
ethical systems was presented in a
lecture format. Awareness of ethical theory is essential for applying
critical assessment skills to ethical

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SuMMEr 2013

dilemmas. Kohlberg's research of
cognitive and moral development
demonstrates that people progress in
their ethical problem solving skills
when "...given the opportunity
to consider other viewpoints and
perspectives" [11]. Without a conceptual background in systematic
ethical evaluation, students display
problem solving techniques that
will be rudimentary at best and will
not lead to a deeper understanding
of how to analyze an ethical course
of action. According to Vartiainen
and Siponen [12], without an appreciation of supportive ethical theory,
"...the student trusts his or her intuition, consciousness or feelings."
Feelings are, of course, sometimes
a satisfactory basis for making ethical choices, but should never be the
exclusive source of guidance available to engineers encountering
ethical dilemmas. Ethical theory
therefore serves as a crucial starting
point and framework for systematic
and thoroughgoing ethical evaluations. The short course presentation
of core ethical theories reviewed
Aristotle, Kant, utilitarianism, Ethics of Care, and Confucian Ethics,
as starting points for ethical decision making. Students then had the
opportunity to share and discuss ethical theories and systems of thought
and place them within the context
of their own belief systems. Many
ethical systems fit under the above
schools of thought or between their
overlapping and intersecting ideologies. This short introduction helped
the students to situate themselves
within the ethical discussion. As per
Internal review Board agreements,
students were not polled regarding
any identifying factors such as country of origin, age, etc.

Judgment Map
Another essential element of ethical decision making is the Map of
Ethical Judgments, shown in Fig. 1.
The students were introduced to
Dragga's [13] continuum of frequency and scope map as part of the
ethical judgments lesson plan. The
|

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Summer 2013