Advertisement

Engineer’s Ecoskepticism as an Ethical Problem

  • Christelle Didier
  • Kristoff Talin
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 21)

Abstract

The graduate engineers’ attitude towards environmental issues differs profoundly from that of their fellow citizens. This is what we have found out when comparing the answers given by 27,000 graduates to an original survey we conducted in 2011 with those of a representative sample of French people who participated to the “European value survey”. The engineers’ attitude is also very different from those of business managers and executives. It also differs from those of other master’s degree graduates. Contrary to our expectations, the demographic change observed in the profession (growth, place of women, development of new educational tracks) has little influence on the professionals’ attitude. The engineers’ attitudes toward environmental issues seem to depend more on their professional position than on their individual traits. While the younger generation seems a little bit more pro-environment than their seniors, females do not differ significantly from their male colleagues on that topic. By contrast, we found out that the engineers’ attitude towards environment is strongly related to their attitude and values in general and their political, ethical and religious attitude in particular.

Keywords

Engineers’ attitude Environment Engineering ethics Politics Religion 

References

  1. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (1977). Code of ethics.Google Scholar
  2. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2006). Development of sustainability provisions in ASCE code of ethics. http://www.asce.org/Publications/ASCE-News/2008/11_November/A-Question-of-Ethics/
  3. Azapagic, A., Slobodan, P., & Shallcross, D. (2005). How much do engineering students know about sustainable development? The findings of an international survey and possible implications for the engineering curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigot, R. (2002). L’opinion et les comportements des Français en matière d’environnement. Paris: Centre de recherche pour l’étude et l’observation des conditions de vie.Google Scholar
  5. Bozonnet, J.-P. (2010a). L’écocentrisme, un grand récit protestataire, mais faiblement engagé. In P. Bréchon & O. Galland (Eds.), L’individualisation des valeurs (pp. 119–140). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  6. Bozonnet, J.-P. (2010b). Short new ecological paradigm in 30 European countries: First results. Gothenburg: Sociology on the move. XVII ISA World Congress of Sociology.Google Scholar
  7. Bréchon, P., & Galland, O. (Eds.). (2010). L’individualisation des valeurs. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  8. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Notre avenir à tous, Rapport de la Commission mondiale sur l’environnement et le développement de l’ONU. Oslo: United Nation. Google Scholar
  9. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Catton, W. R., Jr., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13, 41–49.Google Scholar
  11. CEVIPOF (Centre d’Étude de la Vie Politique Française). (2001). Images de la science. Paris: Cevipof.Google Scholar
  12. CNISF (Conseil National des Ingénieurs et Scientifiques de France). (1996). Code de déontologie. Paris: CNISF.Google Scholar
  13. CNISF (Conseil National des Ingénieurs et Scientifiques de France). (2001). Charte d’éthique de l’ingénieur. Paris: CNISF.Google Scholar
  14. Darsch, C., & Longuet, L. (Eds.). (2011). Observatoire des ingénieurs. Enquête 2011. Paris: Ingénieurs et scientifiques de France.Google Scholar
  15. Didier, C. (2008). Les ingénieurs et l’éthique. Paris: Lavoisier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Didier, C. (2009). Religious and political values and the engineering ethos. In S. H. Christensen, M. Meganck, & B. Delahousse (Eds.), Engineering in context (pp. 417–434). Aarhus: Academia.Google Scholar
  17. Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. (1979). Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FEANI (Fédération Européenne des Associations Nationales d’Ingénieurs). (1992). Code de conduite. Brussels: FEANI.Google Scholar
  21. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). (1990). Code of ethics. http://ieee-ies.org/resources/media/about/history/ieee_codeofethics.pdf
  22. Lagadec, P. (1981). La civilisation du risque. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  23. Organisation des Nations Unies. (2002). Rapport du Sommet mondial pour le développement durable. Johannesburg: UNO.Google Scholar
  24. Popper, K. (1973). La logique de la découverte scientifique. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département des sciences de l’éducation UFR DECCIDUniversité Charles de Gaulle-Lille3LilleFrance
  2. 2.CNRS-Clersé, MESHSLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations