Conference Session

Engineering, Ethics, and Leadership

Collection

2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James N. Magarian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; John M. Feiler, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Leo McGonagle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Eileen Milligan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Alexander Rokosz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Elizabeth Schanne, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Reza S. Rahaman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Olivier Ladislas de Weck, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics Division (ETHICS), Engineering Leadership Development Division (LEAD)

Conference Session

Broader Approaches to Engineering Ethics Education

Collection

2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kyle Payne, Collins Engineers

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics Division (ETHICS)

. Justine reflected on times when she did not trust herinstincts, stating, “The most important thing is to not give up on that instinct. There’s a reasonyou feel that way.”Acknowledging Pressure to Go Along Just like pressure in a liquid or gas may be used by a professional engineer to exert forcein a mechanical system, pressure may be used by a leader to encourage compliance with anunethical directive or request. Of course, pressure in a liquid or gas may be easier to measure andevaluate than the human mind when under stress. Participants emphasized the importance oftheir awareness of what actions others had taken to apply pressure and how they were feelingunder that pressure, both as a means to respond appropriately and to avoid

Conference Session

Engineering Ethics Division (ETHICS) Technical Session _Monday June 26, 11:00 - 12:30

Collection

2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Alice Fox, Stanford; Benjamin C. Beiter, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Engineering Ethics Division (ETHICS)

insistence from engineering and engineering ethics thatfailure is a necessary component of a ‘good’ engineering process and embracing failure isparamount to success in engineering [31], [32], [33], [34], engineering course and programdesign rarely integrate this value. Instead, 40% and 50% student failure rates in engineeringare often explained as not meant to be, unready for rigorous education, or poor work ethic[35], [36]. However, Brandi Geisinger and Raj Raman’s work on understanding attrition ratesidentify ”classroom and academic climate,” “grades and conceptual understanding,” and “self-efficacy and self-confidence” as the three leading reasons students report leaving engineeringdisciplines ([36] p.914). Of these issues, recent investigations