Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1323–1339 | Cite as

An Experiential, Game-Theoretic Pedagogy for Sustainability Ethics

  • Jathan SadowskiEmail author
  • Thomas P. Seager
  • Evan Selinger
  • Susan G. Spierre
  • Kyle P. Whyte
Original Paper

Abstract

The wicked problems that constitute sustainability require students to learn a different set of ethical skills than is ordinarily required by professional ethics. The focus for sustainability ethics must be redirected towards: (1) reasoning rather than rules, and (2) groups rather than individuals. This need for a different skill set presents several pedagogical challenges to traditional programs of ethics education that emphasize abstraction and reflection at the expense of experimentation and experience. This paper describes a novel pedagogy of sustainability ethics that is based on noncooperative, game-theoretic problems that cause students to confront two salient questions: “What are my obligations to others?” and “What am I willing to risk in my own well-being to meet those obligations?” In comparison to traditional professional ethics education, the game-based pedagogy moves the learning experience from: passive to active, apathetic to emotionally invested, narratively closed to experimentally open, and from predictable to surprising. In the context of game play, where players must make decisions that can adversely impact classmates, students typically discover a significant gap between their moral aspirations and their moral actions. When the games are delivered sequentially as part of a full course in Sustainability Ethics, students may experience a moral identity crisis as they reflect upon the incongruity of their self-understanding and their behavior. Repeated play allows students to reconcile this discrepancy through group deliberation that coordinates individual decisions to achieve collective outcomes. It is our experience that students gradually progress through increased levels of group tacit knowledge as they encounter increasingly complex game situations.

Keywords

Wicked problems Professional ethics Group tacit knowledge Experiential pedagogy Sustainability Ethics Game theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1134943. The Global Institute of Sustainability at Arizona State University also provided support. For fruitful conversation we thank: Andrew Berardy, Ben Hale, Amy Befeld, Bert Cohen, Bill Guschwan, Jackie Isaacs, Larry Nies, and Liz Martin. Two anonymous reviewers also gave valuable comments.

References

  1. Allenby, B. (2006). Macroethical systems and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 1, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Government. (2007). Tackling wicked problems.Google Scholar
  3. Batie, S. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  5. Callicott, B. (2011). The temporal and spatial scales of global climate change and the limits of individualistic and rationalistic ethics. Presented at Michigan State University, April 21.Google Scholar
  6. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142.Google Scholar
  7. Erden, Z., Krogh, G. V., & Nonaka, I. (2008). The quality of group tacit knowledge. Journal of Strategic Informations Systems, 17, 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferkany, M., & Whyte, K. P. (2011). The importance of participatory virtues in the future of environmental education. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Online First, April 9.Google Scholar
  9. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  10. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacotot, J. J. (1827). Enseignement Universel (3rd ed.). Louvain: H. de Pauw.Google Scholar
  12. Jamieson, D. (1992). Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jamieson, D. (1996). Ethics and intentional climate change. Climate Change, 33, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jamieson, D. (2010). Climate change, responsibility, and justice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(3), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  16. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Lach, D., Rayner, S., & Ingram, H. (2005). Taming the waters: Strategies to domesticate the wicked problems of water resource management. International Journal of Water, 3(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lazarus, R. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1153–1234.Google Scholar
  19. Norton, B. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norton, B. (2011). The ways of wickedness: Analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3.
  21. Ostrom, E., et al. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Park, J., Seager, T. P., & Rao, P. S. C. (2011). Lessons in risk-versus resilience-based design and management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(3), 396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raffaelle, R., Robison, W., & Selinger, E. (2010). Sustainability ethics: 5 Questions. Denmark: Automatic Press/VIP.Google Scholar
  24. Rancière, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadowski, J. (2011). Experimental analysis of the gap between moral beliefs and moral actions. B.S. Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology: USA.Google Scholar
  27. Seager, T. P., Selinger, E., Whiddon, D., Schwartz, D., Spierre, S., & Berardy, A. (2010). Debunking the fallacy of the individual decision-maker: An experiential pedagogy of sustainability ethics. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international symposium on sustainable systems and technology, Washington DC, May 16–18.Google Scholar
  28. Seager, T. P., Selinger, E., & Clark (Spierre), S. (2011a). Determining moral responsibility for CO2 emissions: A reply to nolt. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 14(1), 39–42.Google Scholar
  29. Seager, T. P., Selinger, E., & Wiek, A. (2011b). Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 1-18. doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2.
  30. Seager, T. P., Park, J., Rao, P. S. C., Welle, P., & Linkov, I. (2011c). Contrasting risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  31. Sibley S. S. (2008). Rotten apples or a rotting barrel. Workshop on ethics education and scientific and engineering research, August 2–26, 2008. National Academy of Engineering Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society: Washington DC.Google Scholar
  32. Spierre, S., Seager, T. P., Selinger, E., & Sadowski, J. (2011). Using non-cooperative games to simulate ethical tensions in climate policy negotiations. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international symposium on sustainable systems and technology, Chicago IL, 16–18 May.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, P. B. (2010). The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson, P., & Whyte, K. (2011). What happens to environmental philosophy in a wicked world? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9344-0.
  35. Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, I., & Jones, M. (2009). Noisy and definitely not normal: Responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jathan Sadowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas P. Seager
    • 1
  • Evan Selinger
    • 2
  • Susan G. Spierre
    • 3
  • Kyle P. Whyte
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built EnvironmentArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Philosophy and Graduate Program, Faculty in the Golisano Institute for SustainabilityRochester Institute of TechnologyHenriettaUSA
  3. 3.Global Institute of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations