Paper ID #12492Exploring Ethical Validation as a Key Consideration in Interpretive ResearchQualityDr. Joachim Walther, University of Georgia Dr. Walther is an assistant professor of engineering education research at the University of Georgia (UGA). He is a director of the Collaborative Lounge for Understanding Society and Technology through Educational Research (CLUSTER), an interdisciplinary research group with members from engineering, art, educational psychology and social work. His research interests range from the role of empathy in engineering students’ professional formation, the role of reflection in
”). Professional codes of ethics and ABET requirements are sometimes applied, withsustainability introduced as a design constraint.3 In our experience, these professionalrequirements are often treated only in senior design projects, and then only as items on achecklist. Optional minor and certificate programs may exist for those engineering students whoare interested, but even here crucial tensions often go unexplored between definitions ofsustainability (between weak and strong sustainability4, 5, between “technological sustainability”and “ecological sustainability”6, between “eco-efficiency” and “eco-effectiveness”7, or betweensustainability and sustainable development8, 9, 10, 11) and even between areas of the triple bottomline.3 Missing, too, are
Paper ID #12225Which Courses Influence Engineering Students’ Views of Social Responsibil-ity?Dr. Nathan E Canney PE, Seattle University Dr. Nathan E. Canney teaches civil engineering at Seattle University. His research focuses on engineering education, specifically the development of social responsibility in engineering students. Other areas of interest include ethics, service learning, and sustainability education. Dr. Canney received bachelor’s degrees in Civil Engineering and Mathematics from Seattle University, a master’s in Civil Engineering from Stanford University with an emphasis on structural engineering, and a
students to the overallcomplexity of wicked problems3,11, while giving students the tools and cognitive awareness toeffectively and confidently respond to these wicked problems in their future work asprofessionals, designers, and engineers (see Hess, Brownell, & Dale 2014 for the instructionaldesign1). The survey we have designed corresponds to the following learning objectives:As a result of participating in the course, students will… 1) Develop confidence in responding to wicked, sustainability-related problems 2) Become conscious of the ethical and professional responsibilities within their field in a (a) global, (b) social, and (c) environmental contextIn the first WPSI iteration, we created and distributed 15 loosely related
(ExEEd) at Rowan University. He received his Ph.D in Chemical & Biochemical Engineering from the Rutgers Uni- versity, with a focus in adsorption science and the characterization of porous materials. His research inter- ests include engineering ethics and broadening inclusivity in engineering, especially among the LGBTQ+ community. His funded research explores the effects of implicit bias on ethical decision making in the engineering classroom. Dr. Cimino has published papers and given presentations at national and inter- national engineering conferences. He teaches Freshman and Sophomore Engineering Clinics at Rowan University.Dr. Stephanie Farrell, Rowan University Dr. Stephanie Farrell is Professor and
inclusion.Dr. Kendall Roark, Purdue University at West Lafayette Kendall Roark is an applied cultural anthropologist who engages in ethnographic fieldwork and anthrode- sign projects in Canada and the United States. Her research and teaching interests focus on participatory and speculative design, queer and feminist technoscience studies, and data ethics. Dr. Roark is the co- founder and faculty lead for the Critical Data Studies Collective at Purdue University.Brent T. Ladd, Center for Science of Information, Purdue University Brent Ladd serves as Director of Education (and Interim Director of Diversity) for the Center for Science of Information NSF Science and Technology Center based at Purdue University. His education
, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Carla B. Zoltowski is an assistant professor of engineering practice in the Schools of Electrical and Com- puter Engineering and (by courtesy) Engineering Education, and Director of the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program within the College of Engineering at Purdue. She holds a B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. in Engineering Education, all from Purdue. Her research interests include the professional for- mation of engineers, diversity, inclusion, and equity in engineering, human-centered design, engineering ethics, and leadership.Prof. Patrice Marie Buzzanell, Purdue University at West Lafayette Patrice M. Buzzanell is Professor and Chair of
served as Program Chair, Associate Chair or Major Chair. The alumnigraduation year ranged from 1971 to 2019. These alumni are currently participating in diversecareers, including entrepreneurship, as employees of engineering firms, academia, graduatestudies, business analysis and management consulting, pharmaceutical science and law.Data Collection and AnalysisData was collected through semi-structured interviews with faculty members and alumni. Thestudy protocol was approved by the appropriate university research ethics board. The interviewswere conducted on Zoom, due in part to the Covid-19 Pandemic, and were subsequentlytranscribed by the research team. The faculty interviews were analyzed using open coding; codeswere developed based on
argue that culturalresponsiveness, as well as a commitment to research that actively benefits marginalizedcommunities, are two core components of quality in qualitative research that were not originallyidentified by Walther et al.In the remainder of this paper, we use their six validation types—theoretical validation,procedural validation, communicative validation, pragmatic validation, ethical validation, andprocess reliability—as an organizational framework. Under each validation type, we describehow researchers can maintain cultural responsiveness during three phases: the conceptualizationphase, the data generation phase, and the data handling phase. To identify additional validationstrategies beyond Walther et al.’s framework, we conducted
. Discussion.The field of engineering education has long focused on instilling a set of core ethicalprinciples in developing engineers28, 29, 30. Guided by the U.S. Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET), undergraduate engineering programs aim to helpstudents develop “an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility”31. Ingeneral, however, engineering ethics have emphasized principles such as accountabilityto the client—defined as the people or organizations who have retained the engineer’sservices, not as the broader public for whom a given product or innovation will result ineither benefit or harm30. Some have critiqued this approach as insufficient for producingengineers who think critically about the social implications of
they believe each engineering undergraduate degreeprogram should be able to cultivate in their students, including: (a) an ability to apply knowledgeof mathematics, science and engineering, (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, aswell as to analyze and interpret data, (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process tomeet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political,ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability, (e) an ability to identify,formulate, and solve engineering problems, and (g) an ability to communicate effectively (ABETCriterion 3. Student Outcomes (a-k)). We argue that all of these skills are essential componentsof the argumentation process
. 2Third, the networks in which employees are embedded have shifted, becoming more cross-organizational and distributed in nature. This can facilitate learning and knowledge sharing,but can also create barriers for studying the many informal and formal networks that transcendconventional structures. Many of these networks also span geographic and/or culturalboundaries. Spanning these boundaries not only necessitates using various technologies forcommunication but can also involve differences in language and other communicative practices,technical training, ethical grounding, and regulatory environments. The use of social mediaplatforms like LinkedIn is also reshaping what it means to be a professional and engage intechnical work. Rather than
responsibility is the desire to dosomething to meet societal needs. Vanzdoort discusses the micro levels of social responsibilitysuch as ethical codes for engineers and macro levels of social responsibility such as societaldecisions about technology. He states that knowledge of the social aspects of engineering isnecessary because of the environment in which engineers work [1]. Research also suggests thatthere is a need for global competence in the engineering profession. Lohmann, Rollins, and Hoeyresearched the importance of learning about cultures and issues worldwide [2]. Their studyconcluded that international study is key to becoming a successful global engineer. Thoughtechnical skills are necessary, they are not sufficient. To obtain ABET
of their classroom will be conducted and filmed on aday where epistemic issues will be discussed. This researcher will prepare clips of moments inthe lesson pertinent to epistemic belief, such as discussions of assumptions or ethical dilemmas(often associated with safety and process decisions). A second interview will then be conductedwith this faculty member to discuss what thoughts and motivations were associated with thesemoments. Interviews will also be conducted with three students from each classroom in order tosee how these lessons were interpreted by the students.For the first interview, the protocol will largely follow the process described by Montfort et al.(2014), featuring semi-structured questions centered around Hofer’s (1997
Pittsburgh. His research focuses on improving the engineering education experience with an emphasis on assessment of design and problem solving, and the study of the ethical behavior of engineers and engineering managers. A former Senior Editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, Shuman is the Founding Editor of Advances in Engineering Education. He has published widely in engineering education literature, and is co-author of Engineering Ethics: Balancing Cost, Schedule and Risk - Lessons Learned from the Space Shuttle (Cambridge University Press). He received his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in Operations Research and a B.S.E.E. from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Shuman is an ASEE Fellow
ensuring aspects of quality and validity ininterpretive research in engineering education for capturing the social reality under study17. Thisframework serves as a guide for both “making the data” and “handling the data” in qualitativework, establishing measures for process reliability and theoretical, pragmatic, procedural,communicative, and ethical validation17. An in-depth examination of our quality considerationsfor “making the data” can be found in our previous paper8. We are also currently developingquality assurance steps for “handling the data,” and will describe these steps in a futurepublication.Our qualitative research utilizes a one-on-one, semi-structured interview method8 derived fromMcIntosh’s “serial testimony” technique18,19. We
assistant at the Tufts’ Center for Engineering Education and Outreach.Dr. Darshan Karwat, Arizona State University I am an assistant professor with a joint appointment in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and The Polytechnic School at ASU, where I run re-Engineered, an interdisciplinary group that embeds peace, social justice, and environmental protection in engineering. I am originally from Mumbai, India, but feel equally at home in Michigan or Washington, D.C. (and now, the Valley!). I studied aerospace engineering (specializing in gas dynamics and combustion) and sustainability ethics at the University of Michigan. I then spent three years as a AAAS Fellow in Washington, D.C., first at the U.S
,economic issues, and workplace dynamics as reasons for engineers to value diversity.Social justice can be defined as “…full and equal participation of all groups in a society that ismutually shaped to meet their needs” (Adams, Bell and Griffin 2007). This definition relates toengineering in more than one way. First, to achieve social justice, all members of society withthe interest and aptitude must have the opportunity to fully participate in engineering practices.Thus the changing demographics of the United States might be one reason engineers should careabout diversity (Change the Equation, 2015). Second, as described in the preamble to theNational Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics, “Engineering has a direct and vitalimpact on
Complete a research boot campFocus on foundations of engineering process and the (training on research skills,introduction scientific method, scientific writing and scientific writing, presentation,to cancer presentation, and literature research skills. All ethics, team-building andresearch, lectures are heavily weighted toward laboratory safety)—first offeringresearch discussion and student participation. Students was in conjunction with existinginitiation produce two videos (5 min each) in a team for REU boot camp a broader audience. Students identify a faculty
their undergraduate programs and educateinclusive communities of engineering and computer science students prepared to solve 21st-century challenges.”The idea for RED emerged from a high-level review of Engineering Education investments at theNSF. Informed by both internal program evaluations of current and prior programs and externalassessments in the engineering education literature [1, 2], the review revealed that while therehad been significant progress made in diffusing engineering education innovations in first-yearengineering and in capstone design, change had been much slower in the middle years of thecurriculum. In particular, while certain workplace-relevant engineering skills such ascommunication, teamwork, design, ethics, and socio
approaches with technical engineering skills. This requires anenhanced curriculum with a focus on student teamwork, a greater consideration of social context,improved communication with diverse constituents, and reflection on an ethical understanding oftheir decisions and solutions. Effective faculty members need to mirror these values and skills intheir instruction and mentoring. Efforts have begun to reimagine the “engineering canon” whichrequires a shift from positioning engineering as a purely technical endeavor to framing it associo-technical. We are developing a new General Engineering program that incorporates thisperspective [30]. In addition, we are developing modules that emphasize the sociotechnicalnature of engineering for traditional
1 Grit/Work • “Engineers have to have perseverance […] I feel like I have (“I have” or “I Approach perseverance” (Francis) am”) • “I do have a very strong work ethic” (Tranlin) Mindset/ • “Engineering is very much a personality thing” (Kathie) Brain • “It’s just the way my brain works” (Eric) • “I’m pretty good at communicating” (Dominic) Social • “I like to help people” (Elizabeth) • “I enjoy group work and working with people” (Bradley) • “I like when things
, engineering ethics, and environmental justice.Erica D. McCray, University of Florida Dr. Erica D. McCray is an Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Florida. Prior to joining the faculty, she served as a special educator for students with behavioral and learning disabilities in Title I elementary and middle school settings. Dr. McCray has been recognized on multiple levels for her teaching and research, which focuses on diversity issues. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work in Progress: An Exploration of the In/Authentic Experiences of EngineersAbstractThis paper is a work in progress
research.Different ways of thinking facilitate different strategies and subsequent actions to innovate. Thestudy uses the Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (Warren, Archambault, &Foley, 2014) that embraces four ways of thinking including futures, values, systems, andstrategic thinking to address complex educational challenges.Futures thinking focuses on working to address tomorrow’s problems today with anticipatoryapproaches to understand and prepare for future changes, problems, and solutions (Warren et al.,2014). Values thinking is about recognizing the concepts of ethics, equity, and social justice(Warren et al., 2014). It involves understanding these concepts in the context of varying culturesand accordingly making decisions. Systems
and dynamics of machinery for undergraduate engineering programs. He has advised on over forty (40) Senior Design Projects and his teams of students have received five (5) National Championships and three Best Design Awards. In the recent years, he has challenged himself with the creation of an effective methodology for successful Invention and Innovation. He was part of a 14 member multi-disciplinary team to design and create the ”Society, Ethics, and Technology (SET)” course at TCNJ in 1994 and has c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Paper ID #27214taught multiple regular and Honors sections
, University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on improving the engineering education experience with an emphasis on assessment of design and problem solving, and the study of the ethical behavior of engineers and engineering managers. A former Senior Editor of the Journal of Engineering Education, Shuman is the Founding Editor of Advances in Engineering Education. He has published widely in engineering education literature, and is co-author of Engineering Ethics: Balancing Cost, Schedule and Risk - Lessons Learned from the Space Shuttle (Cambridge University Press). He received his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in Operations Research and a B.S.E.E. from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Shuman is an ASEE Fellow
participationUndergraduate research. Hirsch, Linsenmeier, Smith, and Walker investigated theeffectiveness of summer research experience in improving bioengineering students’ competencyin ethics and communication.17 Through comparing 39 participants’ assessment results at thebeginning and end of the summer research, this study revealed that students developed a greaterawareness of key concepts in ethics, and understood the importance of audience and themultifaceted nature of technical communication.Zydney, Bennett, Shahid, and Bauer investigated the impact of undergraduate research onstudent development by comparing 157 graduates with research experience and 88 graduateswithout research experience.18 They found that the graduates with undergraduate
ortheir preference for aggregated or disaggregated data in a given project.3We see all such choices by STEM education researchers as powerful indicators of socialunderstandings of equity and inclusion and find the absence of routine inquiry about theseconditions of research to be concerning. As Riley writes of one ubiquitous methodologicalcommitment in particular, “The evidence-based process [of STEM education research] isinstrumental in that it is a means to a given end, and the ethics or morality of those ends is notconsidered.”4 We see “ethics or morality” configuring all research choices and along with Riley,envision a set of critical questions that could potentially increase the impact of educationalresearch upon social inequities. Such
Distinguished Teacher-Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His interests include computational complexity theory, professional ethics, and engineering education research. He serves as Editor of the Journal of Engineering Education and as a member of the editorial boards of College Teaching and Ac- countability in Research. He is a Carnegie Scholar and an IEEE Fellow. Professor Loui was Associate Dean of the Graduate College at Illinois from 1996 to 2000. He directed the theory of computing program at the National Science Foundation from 1990 to 1991. He earned the Ph.D. at M.I.T. in 1980. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 WIP: Designing a Course to Promote