Advertisement

Situating Moral Agency: How Postphenomenology Can Benefit Engineering Ethics

  • L. Alexandra MorrisonEmail author
Original Research/Scholarship
First Online:

Abstract

This article identifies limitations in traditional approaches to engineering ethics pedagogy, reflected in an overreliance on disaster case studies. Researchers in the field have pointed out that these approaches tend to occlude ethically significant aspects of day-to-day engineering practice and thus reductively individualize and decontextualize ethical decision-making. Some have proposed, as a remedy for these defects, the use of research and theory from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to enrich our understanding of the ways in which technology and engineering practice are intricated in social and institutional contexts. While endorsing this approach, this article also argues that STS scholarship may not sufficiently address the kinds of questions about normativity and agency that are essential to engineering ethics. It proposes making use of the growing body of research in a field called “postphenomenology,” an approach that combines STS research with the traditional phenomenological concern with the standpoint of lived-experience. Postphenomenology offers a method of inquiry that combines STS’s investigation into social and institutional dimensions of technology with phenomenological reflection on our lived experience of embodied engagement with technical objects and sociotechnical systems, particularly the ways in which these involvements affect our moral perception and agency. The aim in using this approach in engineering ethics is thus to illuminate moral dimensions of everyday professional life of which practitioners may not typically be aware. The article concludes with some concrete curricular interventions for engineering ethics classrooms.

Keywords

Ethics Engineering Postphenomenology Philosophy of technology STS Moral Agency Education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Ahman, A., Edvardsson, K., Fagerli, T. A., Darj, E., Holmund, S., Small, R., et al. (2019). A much valued tool that also brings ethical dilemmas—a qualitative study of Norwegian midwives experiences and views on the role of obstetric ultrasound. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth,19(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich, Madeleine. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of Convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–265). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. E. (1993). Do not despair: There is life after constructivism. Science, Technology and Human Values,18(1), 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (Eds.). (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed.). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brey, P. (1997). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: A shopper’s guide. Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology,2(3), 56–78.Google Scholar
  9. Bucciarelli, L. L. (2008). Ethics and engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education,33(2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker & T. P. Hughes (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 83–103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cech, E. A. (2013). The (Mis)framing of social justice: Why ideologies of depoliticization and meritocracy hinder engineers’ ability to think about social injustices. In Engineering education for social justice: Critical explorations and opportunities, philosophy of engineering and technology (Vol. 10, pp. 67–84).Google Scholar
  12. Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology and Human Values,39(1), 42–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coeckelbergh, M., & Wackers, G. (2007). Imagination, distributed responsibility, and vulnerability: The case of Snorre A. Science and Engineering Ethics,13(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conlon, E., & Zandvoort, H. (2011). Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approach. Science and Engineering Ethics,17, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, Michael. (2006). Integrating ethics into technical courses: Micro-insertion. Science and Engineering Ethics,12, 717–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, M. (2007). The perils of using hurricane Katrina to teach engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine,26, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devon, R. (2004). Design ethics: The social ethics paradigm. International Journal of Engineering Education,20(3), 461–469.Google Scholar
  19. Dreyfus, H. L. (1999). Anonymity versus commitment: The dangers of education on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology,1(1), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friis, J. K. B. O., & Crease, R. P. (Eds.). (2015). Technoscience and postphenomenology: The Manhattan Paper. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gammeltoft, T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2007). The commodification of obstetric ultrasound scanning in Hanoi, Viet Nam. Reproductive Health Matters,15(29), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Getz, Linda, & Kirkengen, Anne Luise. (2003). Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: Advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Social Science and Medicine,56(10), 2045–2057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Han, Hyemin. (2015). Virtue ethics, positive psychology, and a new model of science and engineering ethics engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics,21, 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Han, Hyemin, & Jeong, Changwoo. (2014). Improving epistemological beliefs and moral judgement through an STS-based science ethics education program. Science and Engineering Ethics,20, 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris, C. E. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics,14, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (2018). Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Sixth. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and Time. In D. J. Schmidt (Ed.), J. Stambaugh, Trans. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hafstetter, Y., van den Hoven, J., Zicari R. V., & Zwitter, A. (2017). Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence? Scientific American, Feb. 27, 1–48.Google Scholar
  29. Herkert, J. (2001). Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies. Science and Engineering Ethics,7, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herkert, J. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics,11, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herkert, J. (2006). Confessions of a shoveler: STS subcultures and engineering ethics. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,26(5), 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffmann, A. L. (2016). Facebook has a new process for discussing ethics. But is it ethical? The Guardian. Retrieved August 21, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-ethics-but-is-it-ethical.
  33. Husserl, E. (2014). Ideas I: Ideas for a pure phenomenology and phenomenological philosophy (D. O. Dahlstrom, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Classics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ihde, D. (1995). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University Lectures. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. G., & Wetmore, K. M. (2008). STS and ethics: Implications for engineering ethics. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 567–582). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kitchin, R. (2016). The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kline, R. R. (2001). Using history and sociology to teach engineering ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine,20(4), 13–20.  https://doi.org/10.1109/44.974503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1987). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lynch, W. T., & Kline, R. (2000). Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values,25(2), 195–225.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Philadelphia PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. (2013). The phenomenology of perception. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Metz, C., & Conger, K. (2018). Tech workers with ethics concerns now want to know: What are we building this for? The seattle times. Retrieved 21 August, 2019 from, https://www.seattletimes.com/business/tech-workers-now-want-to-know-what-are-we-building-this-for/.
  49. Mitcham, C. (2009). A historico-ethical perspective on engineering education: From use and convenience to policy engagement. Engineering Studies,1(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitcham, C., & Englehardt, E. (2016). Ethics across the curriculum: Prospects for broader (and deeper) teaching and learning in research and engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9797-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mitcham, C., & von Schomberg, R. (2000). The ethics of engineers: From occupational role responsibility to public co-responsibility. Research in Philosophy and Technology,20, 167–189.Google Scholar
  52. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science,25, 1159–1168.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murdoch, I. (1985). The sovereignty of good. London, U.K.: Ark Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  54. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies,29(S2), 1005–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1086/468103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Shea, L. (2018). Tech has no moral code. It is everyone’s job now to fight for one. The Guardian. April 25.Google Scholar
  56. Ozaktas, H. M. (2013). Teaching science, technology, and society to engineering students: A sixteen year journey. Science and Engineering Ethics,19, 1439–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pritchard, M. S. (1998). Professional responsibility: Focusing on the exemplary. Science and Engineering Ethics,4, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pritchard, M. S. (2001). Responsible engineering: The importance of character and imagination. Science and Engineering Ethics,7, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riley D. (2008). Ethics in context, ethics in action: Getting beyond the individual professional in engineering ethics education. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved September 4, 2019, from https://peer.asee.org/ethics-in-context-ethics-in-action-getting-beyond-the-individual-professional-in-engineering-ethics-educationAccessed.
  60. Russon, J. (2013). The virtues of agency: A phenomenology of security, courage and creativity. In K. Hermberg & P. Gyllenhammer (Eds.), Phenomenology and virtue ethics (pp. 165–179). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt, J. A. (2014). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics,20, 985–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt, L. E., & Marratto, S. (2008). The end of ethics in a technological society. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Selinger, E. (2009). Technology transfer and globalization. In J. K. B. Olsen, E. Selinger, & S. Riis (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of technology (pp. 267–291). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Singer N. (2018). Tech’s ethical “dark side”: Harvard, Stanford and others want to address it. The New York times. Retrieved August 21, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/business/computer-science-ethics-courses.html.
  65. Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. (2006). Responsibility without moralism in technoscientific design practice. Science, Technology and Human Values,31(3), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tarnoff, B., & Weigel, M. (2018). Why silicon valley can’t fix itself. The Guardian. Thu 3 May. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/03/why-silicon-valley-cant-fix-itself-tech-humanism. Accessed 27 November 2019.
  68. Thoma, S. J. (2014). Measuring moral thinking from a neo-Kohlbergian perspective. Theory and Research in Education,12(3), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Upadhyay, U. D., Kimport, K., Belusa, E. K. O., Johns, N. E., Laube, D. W., & Roberts, S. C. M. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study. PLoS ONE,12(7), e0178871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2007). The ethical cycle. Journal of Business Ethics,71, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9121-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  73. van de Poel, I., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Ethics and engineering design. Science, Technology, and Human Values,31(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values,31(3), 361–380.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light, & S. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design (pp. 91–103). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wakefield J. (2019). The Google city that has angered Toronto. BBC News Technology Retrieved August 22, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47815344.
  79. Whitbeck, C. (1998). Ethics in engineering practice and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Winner, L. (1990). Engineering ethics and political imagination. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology (pp. 53–64). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values,18(3), 362–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yadav, A., & Barry, Brock E. (2009). Using case-based instruction to increase ethical understanding in engineering: What do we know? what do we need? International Journal of Engineering Education,25(1), 138–143.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HumanitiesMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options