Search results

(1 - 6 of 6)
Getting an Ethics Charge Out of Current Events : Some Doubts About Katrina
Title
Getting an Ethics Charge Out of Current Events : Some Doubts About Katrina
Creator
Davis, Michael
Date
2006, 2006
Publisher
Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, IIT
Description
The author discusses why he believes that Hurricane Katrina, which is certainly the biggest engineering disaster in the history of the United...
Show moreThe author discusses why he believes that Hurricane Katrina, which is certainly the biggest engineering disaster in the history of the United States, is not a good case for teaching engineering ethics. This is for three major reasons. First, there is the question of what happened. Second, there is the question of what part engineers had in what happened, which decisions were theirs and which belonged to elected or appointed officials who were not engineers. Third, there is the question of what part engineering ethics had, or should have had, in the decisions engineered did make. We lack any dramatic moment such as the Challenger Disaster provided, a moment when ethics mattered in a way that is both precise and interesting.
resentation at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference. Hyatt Regency, Chicago, IL. June 20, 2006.
Show less
Assessing Graduate Student Progress in Engineering Ethics
Title
Assessing Graduate Student Progress in Engineering Ethics
Creator
Davis, Michael, Feinerman, Alan
Date
2010-11-10, 2011
Publisher
Springer
Description
Under a grant from the National Science Foundation, the authors (and others) undertook to integrate ethics into graduate engineering classes...
Show moreUnder a grant from the National Science Foundation, the authors (and others) undertook to integrate ethics into graduate engineering classes at three universities—and to assess success in a way allowing comparison across classes (and institutions). This paper describes the attempt to carry out that assessment. Standard methods of assessment turned out to demand too much class time. Under pressure from instructors, the authors developed an alternative method that is both specific in content to individual classes and allows comparison across classes. Results are statistically significant for ethical sensitivity and knowledge. They show measurable improvement in a single semester.
Show less
'Ain't No One Here But Us Social Forces' : Constructing the Social Responsibility of Engineers.
Title
'Ain't No One Here But Us Social Forces' : Constructing the Social Responsibility of Engineers.
Creator
Davis, Michael
Date
2011-04, 2011-06
Publisher
Springer
Description
There are many ways to avoid responsibility, for example, explaining what happens as the work of the gods, fate, society, or the system. For...
Show moreThere are many ways to avoid responsibility, for example, explaining what happens as the work of the gods, fate, society, or the system. For engineers, “technology” or “the organization” will serve this purpose quite well. We may distinguish at least nine (related) senses of “responsibility”, the most important of which are: (a) responsibility-as-causation (the storm is responsible for flooding), (b) responsibility-as-liability (he is the person responsible and will have to pay), (c) responsibility-as-competency (he’s a responsible person, that is, he’s rational), (d) responsibility-as-office (he’s the responsible person, that is, the person in charge), and (e) a responsibility-as-domain-of-tasks (these are her responsibilities, that is, the things she is supposed to do). For all but the causal sense of responsibility, responsibility may be taken (in a relatively straightforward sense)—and generally is. Why then would anyone want to claim that certain technologies make it impossible to attribute responsibility to engineers (or anyone else)? In this paper, I identify seven arguments for that claim and explain why each is fallacious. The most important are: (1) the argument from “many hands”, (2) the argument from individual ignorance, and (3) the argument from blind forces. Each of these arguments makes the same fundamental mistake, the assumption that a certain factual situation, being fixed, settles responsibility, that is, that individuals, either individually or by some group decision, cannot take responsibility. I conclude by pointing out the sort of decisions (and consequences) engineers have explicitly taken responsibility for and why taking responsibility for them is rational, all things considered. There is no technological bar to such responsibility.
Science and Engineering Ethics.
Show less
Do the Professional Ethics of Chemists and Engineers Differ ?
Title
Do the Professional Ethics of Chemists and Engineers Differ ?
Creator
Davis, Michael
Date
2011, 2002
Publisher
HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry
Description
This paper provides a sketch of my general way of understanding professions and then applies that sketch to a specific question, how to...
Show moreThis paper provides a sketch of my general way of understanding professions and then applies that sketch to a specific question, how to distinguish between two very similar professions, chemistry and engineering. I argue that the professional ethics of chemists do differ from the professional ethics of engineers and that the differences are important. The argument requires definition of both ‘ethics’ and ‘profession’ – as well delving into the details of chemistry and engineering.
HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry Vol. 8, No . 1 (2002) http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/davis.htm
Show less
Ethics in the Details : Communicating Engineering Ethics via Micro-Insertion
Title
Ethics in the Details : Communicating Engineering Ethics via Micro-Insertion
Creator
Davis, Michael, Riley, Kathryn, Cox, Apryl, Maciukenas, James
Date
2009, 2009
Publisher
IEEE
Description
Work is described on a National Science Foundation grant that supports the development, assessment, and dissemination of “micro-insertion”...
Show moreWork is described on a National Science Foundation grant that supports the development, assessment, and dissemination of “micro-insertion” problems designed to integrate ethics into the graduate engineering curriculum. In contrast to traditional modular approaches to ethics pedagogy, micro-insertions introduce ethical issues by means of a “low-dose” approach. Following a description of the micro-insertion approach, we outline the workshop structure being used to teach engineering faculty and graduate students how to write micro-insertions for graduate engineering courses, with particular attention to how the grant develops engineering students’ (and faculty members’) ability to communicate across disciplinary boundaries. We also describe previous and planned methods for assessing the effectiveness of micro-insertions. Finally, we explain the role that technical communication faculty and graduate students are playing as part of the grant team, specifically in developing an Ethics In-Basket that will disseminate micro-insertions developed during the grant.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications Vol. 52, Issue 1, pp. 95-108.
Show less
IIT's Workshops for Integrating Ethics into Technical Courses : Some Lessons Learned
Title
IIT's Workshops for Integrating Ethics into Technical Courses : Some Lessons Learned
Creator
Davis, Michael
Date
2006, 2006
Publisher
Philosophy Documentation Center
Description
In 1990, IIT's Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions received a grant of more than $210,000 from the National Science Foundation...
Show moreIn 1990, IIT's Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions received a grant of more than $210,000 from the National Science Foundation to try a campus-wide approach to integrating professional ethics into its technical curriculum; in 1996, the Center received another $100,000 to continue the project, with the emphasis on passing along to other institutions what was learned at IIT; and, in 2000, the Center received a third grant for three years, with the same emphasis, for $244,000. Between 1990 and 2004, more than 160 faculty “graduated” from the workshop and another dozen or so attended as unofficial volunteers. I was the principal investigator under all three grants, but shared the work with three co-PIs, the “we” in what follows. Though I generally prefer to emphasize what we did right, emphasizing what I now think we should have done differently should be more helpful here. There are at least three reasons why that should be so. First, I have already made many presentations, including several in Japan, arguing the (very real) merits of what we did. While repetition can help to make a point, sooner or later, though usually sooner, the effect of repetition ceases to repay the effort. I fear I may have reached that point. Second, I have nowhere before said much about what now seem mistakes —or, at least, lost opportunities. Discussing them here should add to what is known about ethics workshops. Adding to that knowledge seems worthy in itself. Third, you are already committed to ethics across the curriculum. The question before you now is how to carry out that commitment. I believe there is much to learn from our mistakes. We certainly learned much from the mistakes of those whose workshops we studied before undertaking our own. Running that workshop included the following activities: recruiting, scheduling, content, and research. For each activity, I will first briefly explain what we did and then what I now think we should have done.
Teaching Ethics, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 1-14
Show less