BOARD # 404: NSF ER2 Project: Exploring the Variation in Understanding and Experiences with Ethical Engineering Research among Faculty in Biomedical Engineering

Justin L Hess; Nicholas D. Fila; Andrew O. Brightman; Alison J Kerr; Sowmya Panuganti; Tyler A Ramsey

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Publication Date: June 22, 2025
Start Date: June 22, 2025
End Date: August 15, 2025
Conference Session: NSF Grantees Poster Session II
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 6
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/55780

Paper Authors

biography

Justin L Hess Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE) orcid.org/0000-0002-1210-9535

visit author page

Dr. Justin L Hess is an associate professor in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Dr. Hess's research involves exploring and promoting empathic and ethical formation in engineering education.

visit author page

biography

Nicholas D. Fila Iowa State University of Science and Technology

visit author page

Nicholas D. Fila is an assistant teaching professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University. He earned a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University. His research interests include empathy, ethics, design thinking, and course design.

visit author page

biography

Andrew O. Brightman urdue University – West Lafayette (College of Engineering)

visit author page

Andrew O. Brightman is Professor of Engineering Practice in the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering. His research background is in cellular biochemistry, tissue engineering, engineering ethics, and diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering education. Professor Brightman is an inaugural Fellow of the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science and is developing a Community of Practice around Ethics Education in Biomedical Engineering to develop and disseminate best practices for ethics training for the field of Biomedical Engineering.

visit author page

biography

Alison J Kerr Colorado School of Mines

visit author page

Alison J. Kerr has a doctoral degree in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from The University of Tulsa. Dr. Kerr's research interests include training development and evaluation as explored across a variety of academic disciplines and organizational se

visit author page

biography

Sowmya Panuganti Purdue Engineering Education

visit author page

Sowmya Panuganti is a graduate student at Purdue University in the Engineering Education department. She is passionate about understanding engineering culture and the effects it has on engineers' mental health and well-being.

visit author page

author page

Tyler A Ramsey Purdue University at West Lafayette (COE)

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Promoting ethical engineering research within a discipline requires a thorough understanding of the challenges and variations in ways engineering faculty members experience, understand, and practice ethical research within that discipline. Such understanding is particularly important in biomedical engineering given its novel and interdisciplinary nature, potential to affect human life and well-being, and the unique types of ethical issues biomedical engineering faculty members may encounter when compared to other types of engineering.

We seek to support the above understanding by addressing three sequenced research questions: (1) What are the qualitatively different ways of experiencing and understanding ethical engineering research by faculty members in biomedical engineering?; (2) What critical factors influence ways of experiencing and understanding ethical engineering research by faculty members in biomedical engineering?; and (3): How can faculty members’ experiences with ethical engineering research inform more effective educational heuristics for preparing ethical engineering researchers? We address our first research question via phenomenography, our second research question via Critical Incident Technique, and our third research question by identifying educational heuristics grounded in the phenomenographic and critical incident data.

We have conducted 25 phenomenographic interviews and used these data to develop emergent results associated with each research question. In addition, we have begun collecting a second round of interviews (focused on the second research question) with the same set of interviewees, .

To address our first research question, we have identified six distinct categories representing “ways of experiencing” ethical engineering research. The not-yet-final categories include: (1) working toward equity, (2) following the rules, (3) working within a good process, (4) stewarding a contributing lab, (5) working within roles and responsibilities, and (6) working within a challenging system. Our next steps involve finalizing the categories and developing an outcome space that represents variation in ways of experiencing ethical engineering research.

To address our second research question, we have extracted 145 critical incidents from the 25 phenomenographic interviews, grouped incidents into 14 incident types, and grouped incident types into five categories: (1) cultural immersions, (2) ethical actions, (3) novel perspectives, (4) training events, and (5) reflection associations. The next steps in this analysis involve completing a second round of interviews with participants, wherein participants interrogate this current set of findings and provide additional, potentially novel critical incidents.

To address our third research question, we have begun generating heuristics representing what faculty members have done, have experienced in their own development, or aspire to do to promote ethical engineering research. Accordingly, the heuristics represent what faculty members might do to promote ethical engineering research and how they might do it.

Upon completion of this study, we will have a better understanding of how biomedical engineering faculty experience and understand ethical engineering research; critical factors that influence ways of experiencing ethical engineering research; and educational heuristics grounded in the lived experiences of biomedical engineering faculty. We hope these findings will help promulgate evidence-based approaches to improving ethical engineering research in engineering disciplines, broadly.

Citation
Format

Hess, J. L., & Fila, N. D., & Brightman, A. O., & Kerr, A. J., & Panuganti, S., & Ramsey, T. A. (2025, June), BOARD # 404: NSF ER2 Project: Exploring the Variation in Understanding and Experiences with Ethical Engineering Research among Faculty in Biomedical Engineering Paper presented at 2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Montreal, Quebec, Canada . https://peer.asee.org/55780

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Promoting ethical engineering research within a discipline requires a thorough understanding of the challenges and variations in ways engineering faculty members experience, understand, and practice ethical research within that discipline. Such understanding is particularly important in biomedical engineering given its novel and interdisciplinary nature, potential to affect human life and well-being, and the unique types of ethical issues biomedical engineering faculty members may encounter when compared to other types of engineering.

We seek to support the above understanding by addressing three sequenced research questions: (1) What are the qualitatively different ways of experiencing and understanding ethical engineering research by faculty members in biomedical engineering?;  (2) What critical factors influence ways of experiencing and understanding ethical engineering research by faculty members in biomedical engineering?; and (3): How can faculty members’ experiences with ethical engineering research inform more effective educational heuristics for preparing ethical engineering researchers? We address our first research question via phenomenography, our second research question via Critical Incident Technique, and our third research question by identifying educational heuristics grounded in the phenomenographic and critical incident data. 

We have conducted 25 phenomenographic interviews and used these data to develop emergent results associated with each research question. In addition, we have begun collecting a second round of interviews (focused on the second research question) with the same set of interviewees, .

To address our first research question, we have identified six distinct categories representing “ways of experiencing” ethical engineering research. The not-yet-final categories include: (1) working toward equity, (2) following the rules, (3) working within a good process, (4) stewarding a contributing lab, (5) working within roles and responsibilities, and (6) working within a challenging system. Our next steps involve finalizing the categories and developing an outcome space that represents variation in ways of experiencing ethical engineering research.

To address our second research question, we have extracted 145 critical incidents from the 25 phenomenographic interviews, grouped incidents into 14 incident types, and grouped incident types into five categories: (1) cultural immersions, (2) ethical actions, (3) novel perspectives, (4) training events, and (5) reflection associations. The next steps in this analysis involve completing a second round of interviews with participants, wherein participants interrogate this current set of findings and provide additional, potentially novel critical incidents.

To address our third research question, we have begun generating heuristics representing what faculty members have done, have experienced in their own development, or aspire to do to promote ethical engineering research. Accordingly, the heuristics represent what faculty members might do to promote ethical engineering research and how they might do it.

Upon completion of this study, we will have a better understanding of how biomedical engineering faculty experience and understand ethical engineering research; critical factors that influence ways of experiencing ethical engineering research; and educational heuristics grounded in the lived experiences of biomedical engineering faculty. We hope these findings will help promulgate evidence-based approaches to improving ethical engineering research in engineering disciplines, broadly.

AU  - Justin L Hess
AU  - Nicholas D. Fila
AU  - Andrew O. Brightman
AU  - Alison J Kerr
AU  - Sowmya Panuganti
AU  - Tyler A Ramsey
CY  - Montreal, Quebec, Canada 
DA  - 2025/06/22
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - BOARD # 404: NSF ER2 Project: Exploring the Variation in Understanding and Experiences with Ethical Engineering Research among Faculty in Biomedical Engineering
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/55780
ER  -