Abstract
Following previous work that shows engineering students possess different levels of understanding of ethics—implicit and explicit—this study focuses on how students’ implicit understanding of engineering ethics influences their team discussion process, in cases where there is significant divergence between their explicit and implicit understanding. We observed student teams during group discussions of the ethical issues involved in their engineering design projects. Through the micro-scale discourse analysis based on cognitive ethnography, we found two possible ways in which implicit understanding influenced the discussion. In one case, implicit understanding played the role of intuitive ethics—an intuitive judgment followed by reasoning. In the other case, implicit understanding played the role of ethical insight, emotionally guiding the direction of the discussion. In either case, however, implicit understanding did not have a strong influence, and the conclusion of the discussion reflected students’ explicit understanding. Because students’ implicit understanding represented broader social implication of engineering design in both cases, we suggest to take account of students’ relevant implicit understanding in engineering education, to help students become more socially responsible engineers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Throughout this article, we use the terms “ethical” and “moral” interchangeably.
Note that this sense of “rationalism” in moral psychology is not the same as “rationalism” in philosophy, which holds that the relevant kinds of reasons are known a priori. The thesis Haidt calls “rationalism” includes (philosophical) rationalism, empiricism, sentimentalism, and pragmatism.
Different psychologists and philosophers prefer one or the other of these phrases, but we see them as getting at the same thing, and so use them interchangeably.
References
Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 629–661.
Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to be-solved insight problems. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1231–1241.
Bloom, P. (2010). How do morals change? Nature, 464, 490.
Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(1), 42–72.
Culver, S. M., Puri, I. K., Wokutch, R. E., & Lohani, V. (2013). Comparison of engagement with ethics between an engineering and a business program. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 585–597.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process, reprinted as vol. 8 of The later works of John Dewey. Jo Ann Boydston (Ed.). Southern Illinois UP, 1986/2008.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry, reprinted as vol. 12 of The later works of John Dewey. Jo Ann Boydston (Ed.). Southern Illinois UP, 1991.
Finucane, M. L. (2012). The role of feelings in perceived risk. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin and M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp. 678–691). doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_26.
Fleck, J. I., & Weisberg, R. W. (2004). The use of verbal protocols as data: An analysis of insight in the candle problem. Memory & Cognition, 32, 990–1006.
Galison, P. (2000). An accident of history. In P. Galison & A. Roland (Eds.), Atmospheric flight in the twentieth century (pp. 3–43). Dordrecht: Springer.
Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.
Greene, J., Nystrom, L., Engell, A., Darley, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389–400.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.
Harris, C. E., Jr. (2008). The good engineer: Giving virtue its due in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 153–164.
Holden, R. J. (2009). People or systems? To blame is human. The fix is to engineer. Professional Safety, 54(12), 34–41.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Girux.
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533–559.
Kelly, D., & Morar, N. (2014). Against the yuck factor: On the ideal role of disgust in society. Utilitas, 26, 153–177.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E. A., Grohman, M. G., Gans, N., Tacca, M., & Brown, M. J. (2015). Exploring implicit understanding of engineering ethics in student teams. In Proceedings of ASEE annual conference & exposition, Seattle, WA.
Lung, C. T., & Dominowski, R. L. (1985). Effects of strategy instructions and practice on nine-dot problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 804–811.
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 288–294.
Nosek, B. A. (2007). Implicit–explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 65–69.
Peters, E. (2006). The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. In S. Lichtenstein & P. Slovic (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 454–463). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pizarro, D. A., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Bloom, P. (2006). The creativity of everyday moral reasoning. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 81–98). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Prinz, J. (2011). Against empathy. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(Spindel Supplement), 214–233.
Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science, 44, 689–700.
Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 103–115.
Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Mackie, D. M., & Strain, L. M. (2006). Of two minds: Forming and changing valence-inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes. Psychological Science, 17, 954–958.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity. The science of innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and arts. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 169–192.
Williams, R. F. (2006). Using cognitive ethnography to study instruction. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zandvoort, H., Borsen, T., Deneke, M., & Bird, S. J. (2013). Perspectives on teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1413–1438.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, E.A., Grohman, M., Gans, N.R. et al. The Roles of Implicit Understanding of Engineering Ethics in Student Teams’ Discussion. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 1755–1774 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9856-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9856-0