Session 2661

Using Design Norms to Teach Engineering Ethics

Gayle E. Ermer and Steven H. VanderLeest

Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI

1 Abstract

Engineering ethics is a difficult subject to teach. Both students and faculty perceive it as a
subjective area that cannot be quantified. Modern faculty are uncomfortable with the idea of
teaching in areas related to values, attitudes, and behavior (areas tied to ethics) as opposed to
knowledge and skills. Engineering students have the preconception that philosophical issues are
too abstract and therefore irrelevant to their engineering work. Ethics is also a difficult subject to
integrate with other engineering topics. The detailed, technical topics of typical engineering
courses do not obviously lend themselves to broad, philosophical analysis. Faculty also feel time
pressure in such courses, dissuading them from squeezing in non-technical topics such as ethics
discussions.

This paper presents an innovative method of teaching ethics as part of the design process. Design
norms are moral guidelines. Normative design attempts to balance design trade-offs not only
among technical constraints but also among ethical constraints. Designing to such norms forces
the engineer to consider the broader impact of the design on the society in which it will be
embedded. Design norms include concepts such as cultural appropriateness, transparency,
stewardship, integrity, justice, and caring. These criteria can be incorporated into an expanded
decision matrix, allowing the engineer to quantify how well a proposed solution meets both
ethical and technical constraints in an explicit trade-off. Because of this organized, quantitative
approach, students are more likely to adopt an ethical standard. By making the ethical judgments
less abstract, both students and instructors will be attracted to integrating design norms into their
own engineering designs.

2 Introduction

Engineering ethics is a difficult subject to teach for several reasons. First, both students and
faculty perceive it as a subjective area that cannot be quantified. For the same reason that
engineering students tend to denigrate the liberal arts, they often shy away from ethics: the softer
side of engineering is seen as uninteresting. Many engineering students prefer the concrete and
specific, not the abstract and general concepts they encounter in ethics. Second, modern faculty
are uncomfortable with the idea of teaching in areas related to values, attitudes, and behavior
(areas tied to ethics) as opposed to knowledge and skills. Engineering faculty rarely feel equipped
to teach in these areas when their own studies typically were focused on technical areas alone. In
Page 7.1253.1

addition, topics related to values and attitudes have religious overtones that faculty might be
reluctant to address. Third, engineering students have the preconception that philosophical issues

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
are too abstract and therefore irrelevant to their engineering work. Philosophy is not practical,
they think, and so ethics as well has seemingly little useful application. They see discussions of
ethical issues as unnecessary. Some students do not even feel the need to behave ethically, or if
they do, they are unaware of the difference between ethical and unethical behavior.

Ethics is also a difficult subject to integrate with other engineering topics. The detailed, technical
topics of typical engineering courses do not obviously lend themselves to broad, philosophical
analysis. Faculty often feel enormous time pressure in such courses, dissuading them from
squeezing in non-technical topics such as ethics. Even when room can be found in the syllabus,
injecting ethics into a technical course often seems insincere and contrived. On the other hand,
providing a distinct ethics course separates theory from the practical application, making it seem
disjointed and unrelated to the actual arenas where we hope students will apply their ethical
knowledge. In part this may be because many technical engineering courses are not integrative
themselves, only covering a narrow topic rather than providing the student with the broad,
complex, open-ended design problems of the real world. Focusing on only one topic or
disciplinary area can artificially eliminate conflicting constraints that can lead to ethical dilemmas.
By comparison, engineering project courses do not usually fall prey to this problem and are thus
popular candidates for inclusion of ethics instruction.

In this paper, we will examine a method of building ethics into a design course in such a way that
it is a truly integral and essential part of the design process. We first examine some of the related
literature to determine the nature and goals of engineering ethics instruction. Second, we will
explore the relationship of the student’s own religious and ethical background to the formal study
of engineering ethics. Third, we describe our list of design norms. Finally, we show how these
design norms can be incorporated as a central part of the design process through the decision
matrix.

3 Ethics in Engineering Education

What is engineering ethics? According to Martin and Schinzinger 1, engineering ethics is “the
study of the moral problems confronted by individuals and organizations involved in engineering.”
Since all engineers are involved in moral decision-making at some level, we wish to encourage
students to take active personal and professional interest in their responsibility to others. As
identified by Unger 2, these issues include, at a minimum, the commonly accepted values of truth,
honesty, trustworthiness, respect for human life and welfare (including that of posterity), fair play,
openness, and competence. These are the kinds of issues commonly addressed in engineering
codes of ethics, although many do not view the codes themselves as particularly valuable ways of
presenting ethical values to engineering students because they only involve basic rule keeping.
Since the directives of ethics codes often conflict, the students must be taught to apply the
principles behind the codes, rather than naively following the codes without understanding the
intent. Van Gorp and van de Poel3 point out that ethical decision making related to engineering
design is especially relevant at two stages in the design process: 1) during formulation of design
criteria or task specifications and 2) during acceptance of trade-offs between those requirements.
Page 7.1253.2

What models are commonly used for establishing and evaluating engineering ethics?

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
The most common approach is probably utilitarian. According to Harris, et. al.4, this type of
ethical decision-making selects “those individual actions or rules that produce the greatest total
amount of utility to those affected.” One of the problems that arises with utilitarian ethics is
defining utility. It is often taken as a synonym for welfare or happiness, but people generally
don’t agree on what welfare or happiness might involve. Often, welfare is identified with
conditions that allow freedom for people to pursue their own utility. The utilitarian approach
often involves cost/benefit analysis, i.e., choosing the course of action that produces the greatest
benefit relative to the cost. This is done primarily based on monetary value. If we accept this
definition of utility and the cost/benefit approach, there can still be problems in clearly identifying
the appropriate audience to which the costs and benefits apply, and more importantly, utilitarian
ethics can justify inappropriate costs to individuals or small groups in favor of the greater good.
It can also be difficult to include environmental effects in this model, unless they can be
meaningfully translated into monetary terms.

Another theory for making moral decisions is based on the concept of universally applicable
duties. This involves the commitment to simple rules based on the inherent worth of all persons.
Rights-based ethical theories identify moral rights as simply human rights. One of the difficulties
with both of these theories lies in dealing with conflicts between various ethical duties or rights
and how to prioritize them.

We propose a normative model for establishing ethical values, implicitly based on religious beliefs.
Students within religious backgrounds can identify with such an approach. The norms identified
here encompass many of those recognized in other theories. The normative approach described
here also encompasses the ethic of care described by Pantazidou and Nair 5. The ethic of care
requires responding to the need of another and acting to fill that need. The normative approach
focuses on value-guided response to a particular situation, dovetailing nicely with the technical
evaluation of potential engineering design solutions.

What are our goals in teaching engineering ethics? David Haws identifies three “enabling”
objectives of engineering ethics education6: a) enhance student’s divergent thinking, b) help them
see engineering outcomes through the eyes of non-engineers, and c) develop the vocabulary of
ethical articulation. By divergent thinking Haws means “considering options and impacts beyond
the narrow realm of engineering, engaging in unfettered discourse with non-engineers, and
considering the ethical perspectives of virtue, right, justice and care, as well as utility.” He also
categorizes engineering ethics education approaches to meeting these goals as one of six
possibilities: professional codes, humanist readings, theoretical grounding, ethical heuristics, case
studies, and service learning. We suggest that the use of design norms has the potential, within
the context of design evaluation, to motivate students to carefully consider the implications of
their choices for all involved in, or affected by, the design and to justify their choices in more than
just technical terms.

4 Student Religious and Ethical Background

Calvin College encourages students to identify and evaluate worldviews. As a religious college,
Page 7.1253.3

faculty present a worldview in the Reformed Christian tradition that we believe is a compelling
framework for approaching the deep questions of life. What is the nature of reality? Why do we

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
exist on this earth? How do we know what is right and wrong? Ethical considerations in large
part grow out of one’s worldview. Although students may enter an engineering program with
weak moral reasoning abilities, they all come from a particular cultural context with attendant
worldview assumptions, and many come with a religious worldview, although it may not be
entirely consistent. If ethical education does not line up with the underlying assumptions of their
worldview, then students may be unwilling or unable to accomplish anything beyond rote
memorization of rules. They will not appropriate or synthesize ethics principles that seemingly
conflict with their fundamental assumptions about right and wrong. Thus it is important to help
the students clarify their own worldview, identify and resolve internal inconsistencies, and then
work out ethical principles consistent with that worldview. Teaching students to recognize their
own worldview and that of others also encourages divergent thinking, by getting the students to
see the world through others’ eyes.

Students with Christian religious backgrounds often look for simple rules based on Biblical
passages that can be applied to their modern situations (demonstrating moral reasoning no higher
than Kohlberg’s conventional level). Our method starts to move students to more sophisticated
moral reasoning (Kohlberg’s post-conventional, or principled morality), by introducing principles,
i.e. norms, for design.

5 Design Norms

Design norms are general principles that relate to how designs “ought” to be, to “right” design.
Design norms are moral guidelines. Normative design attempts to balance design trade-offs not
only among technical constraints but also among ethical constraints. Designing to such norms
forces the engineer to consider the broader impact of the design on the society in which it will be
embedded. The principles we present, based on work in Monsma 7, have a religious basis, since
this allows many students to better relate them to their own worldviews, often religious in nature.

5.1 Cultural Appropriateness

The design ought to fit the culture into which it will be introduced. It should respect cultural
nuances. Designs should be appropriate for the intended culture with respect to size, scale,
specialization, centralization, and so forth. Finding a suitable solution to a design problem
requires understanding the worldviews of all involved parties. Divergent thinking is necessary to
see the design from various perspectives, in order to gauge its fittingness to the task. For
example, in our first year course we give students a design problem where they must solve an
electric power shortage. One of their options is construction of a hydroelectric dam. The norm
of cultural appropriateness helps them to recognize the complex societal impact of such a
solution, such as the positive social impact of a clean power source as well as the negative social
impact of the drastic environmental changes in a dammed river. Issues of appropriateness are
especially highlighted in situations where technology is being designed for applications in
developing countries. Needs for relief from burdensome labor must be met without disrupting
other wholesome aspects of their established way of life.
Page 7.1253.4

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
5.2 Transparency

The design ought to be understandable to the user. Transparency means that users are not misled
or confused by the design, particularly with regard to safety and potential environmental hazards.
The design process and the design itself should openly communicate the intended purposes and
associated risks. Transparent designs are consistent, reliable, and predictable. The design should
promote honesty and meaningful exchange between users and should be communicated in
language that non-engineers can understand, avoiding attempts at deception of any sort. An
example of violating this norm might be a chemical company locating a manufacturing plant in an
impoverished area where people might be accepting of possible hazards due to lack of education.
Using interdisciplinary design teams that include representatives from many constituencies is one
way of achieving this norm.

5.3 Stewardship

The design ought to carefully use earth’s resources, frugally and thoughtfully. Stewardship is the
idea that we are responsible for taking care of the earth (responsible to God, or to our fellow
humans, or to future generations, depending on one’s worldview). Consider the difficulty in
recycling a computer or a refrigerator, two common products that combine a variety of materials
in ways that make recycling almost impossible. Stewardship addresses not only economics issues,
but also environmental effects such as pollution and environmental degradation, and sustainability.
Stewardship also applies to human resources: designs should appropriately utilize the
contributions and capabilities of those who make and use them.

5.4 Integrity

The design ought to demonstrate completeness, a harmony of form and function. The product
must do the job that it was created to do, do it in a way that makes it pleasing to use, and should
promote human values and relationships. For example both a car interior and a computer
graphical user interface can be designed to be intuitive and pleasant to use, where the pieces all
work together well. On the other hand, computer communication can promote poor relationships
by filtering out important parts of the communication (voice inflection, body language, tone,
mood, etc.) Designs should also be robust, i.e., they continue to function reliably even in the face
of unanticipated changes in manufacture and use.

5.5 Justice

The design ought to respect the rights of all persons. The engineer must consider not only the
user, but also others who are directly or indirectly affected by the design. Consider t he digital
divide that has opened as computer technology becomes more essential for basic social functions
such as communication, work, or recreation. Clearly, this technology has not been evenly
distributed because of cost, education, and cultural issues. Consider the decision as to where a
manufacturing plant will be located, which should be heavily influenced by justice (social,
economic, racial, distributive). Certainly a just design will comply with any applicable laws and
codes.
Page 7.1253.5

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
5.6 Caring

The design ought to show due care for persons. It should take into account its effects on
individuals – physically, socially, and psychologically. Technological solutions should address a
real need, one that has been appropriately defined while keeping the individual in mind. This
should include an attitude on the part of engineers that recognizes that technology does not exist
for its own sake, but to better the lives of others. For example, the graphical user interface of
many modern operating systems can be difficult or impossible to navigate for the blind. Web page
navigation can be done via an audio web browser if the pages are designed using standard HTML,
but can become unintelligible when non-standard components are included (to “spice” it up).
Another way caring design can be compromised is by abstracting technical models that do not
apply to the individual situation. For example, time and motion studies might be appropriate ways
of setting up workstations on an assembly line, but this approach would cause difficulties for
particular individuals if their capabilities were significantly different from the established averages.

5.7 Trust

Designs and designers should be trustworthy. This implies that engineers should be honest and
loyal to their employers and the broader community. They should avoid conflicts of interest that
might lead them to make decisions that compromise their duties to others. Engineers should also
be competent to do the required design work in order to avoid violating the public trust. Designs
should be dependable and live up to the expectations of those who use them. Roger Boisjoly and
other engineers who pointed out the O-ring deficiencies before the launch of the space shuttle
Challenger exemplify the norm of trust.

6 Expanded Decision Matrix

A common design tool introduced to engineering students early in their academic careers is the
use of a decision matrix (sometimes called a “design matrix”). The matrix allows the designer to
quantify and rank the merits of multiple alternative solutions to a specified problem. The columns
of the matrix represent the various potential solutions. The rows of the matrix are the criteria by
which the alternatives will be judged. The criteria can include “low cost”, “low maintenance”,
“high safety”, “quick design time”, “low liability”, and so forth. Usually these various criteria are
weighted to indicate priorities. This makes the trade-offs explicit. The decision matrix approach
is similar to standard cost/benefit analysis. First, options are identified. Then costs and benefits
of each are determined, and finally a decision is made based on the sums of costs and benefits.
But, with the use of norms in the matrix, costs and benefits are identified and interpreted much
more broadly.

Usually, the decision matrix is limited to purely technical issues, but the same benefits that accrue
from using the matrix to make explicit technical tradeoffs can be applied to less technical issues as
well. The design norms described in the previous section can be included as part of the design
criteria. The process of weighting the criteria and assigning numerical scores to design
alternatives within each of the norms then makes the ethical trade-offs explicit. The ranking
process, if it is to be done thoroughly, requires that students put themselves into the positions of
Page 7.1253.6

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
others who will interact with their products. At a minimum, the inclusion of norms in the decision
matrix makes students aware of possible ethical ramifications.

Three examples are given here to illustrate the application of the normed decision matrix
technique within an introduction to engineering class for first year students. The first design
project in the course involves groups of students evaluating and selecting a method for gener ating
needed electrical power. Students are provided with the following possibilities: a hydroelectric
dam, a wind farm, solar power, natural gas turbines, a nuclear plant, and coal-fired turbines.
Amounts for initial construction of the plant and yearly operating costs are provided for
calculation of the financial requirements for building each plant using engineering economics
principles. The students are required to do some library research to determine the nature of the
power generating technology and its potential effects on the environment and society. Table 1
shows a decision matrix from one of these projects.

Table 1: Electric Power Decision Matrix

Alternatives
Hydroelectric Wind Solar Natural
Gas etc. …
Criteria Weights Score Weighted S WS S WS S WS
Score
Cost 10 10 100 4 40 2 20 8 80
Risk 5 9 45 9 45 10 50 5 25
Resource Reliability 4 9 36 4 16 3 12 10 40
Transportation 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 10
Site Availability 4 2 8 3 12 3 12 8 32
Cultural 7 7 49 6 42 7 49 5 35
Appropriateness
Transparency 7 5 35 5 35 6 35 8 56
Stewardship
Renewability 5 9 45 10 50 10 50 2 10
Pollution 6 9 56 10 60 10 60 3 18
Ecosystem 4 4 16 7 28 9 36 5 20
Decommissioning 2 2 4 3 6 4 8 5 10
Integrity 2 5 10 3 6 4 8 3 6
Justice 5 7 35 8 40 8 40 7 35
Caring 6 4 24 5 30 7 42 4 24
Trust 7 9 63 6 42 5 35 6 42
Total 528 452 457 443

Having the ethical norms in front of them at the beginning of this process encourages students to
fill in the gaps in their knowledge with their research in order to completely assess the effects of
the various alternatives. Some higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in
Bloom’s taxonomy) is required in order to rank each of the alternatives accurately with respect to
the norms. One of the dangers of this quantification might be redundancy in categories that could
Page 7.1253.7

give inappropriate weight to a particular issue, although this can occur wit h purely technical

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
criteria as well. Note that the norms serve as categories that may be divided into a number of
sub-criteria, as shown in the table for the Stewardship norm.

A second example of this method involves a typical engineering ethics case study. The following
case study from the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism at Texas Tech University
has been used in class as a tool in teaching engineering ethics.

"Pat's boss is an acknowledged expert in the field of catalysis. Pat is the leader of a
group that has been charged with developing a new catalyst system, and the search has
narrowed to two possibilities, Catalyst 'A' and Catalyst 'B'. The boss is certain that the
best choice is 'A', but directs that tests be run on both, 'just for the record.' Owing to
inexperienced help, the tests take longer than expected and the results show that 'B' is
the preferred material. The engineers question the validity of the tests, but because of
the project's timetable, there is no time to repeat the series. The boss, therefore, directs
Pat to work the math backwards and come up with phony data to substantiate the choice
of Catalyst 'A', a choice that all of the engineers in the group, including Pat, agree with.
What should Pat do?"

Some of the alternatives identified in this situation might be: 1) alter the data as your boss
requests, 2) alter the data, but write a memo to keep in your file that expresses your disagreement
with this request, 3) refuse your boss’s request, 4) refuse your boss’s request and go to your
boss’s superior to report his unethical behavior. The simple form of a decision matrix (without
weights) that might aid in analysis of this case is shown in Table 2. In ranking each alternative
with respect to cultural appropriateness one might consider the corporate culture of the
employing company. The scores in the table might reflect that in this company data are not
always taken that seriously and loyalty to an immediate superior is highly valued. Transparency
might include the idea of honesty and the issue of whether or not the decision would stand up
under scrutiny by peers. Caring might involve which option responds best to the felt needs of the
people involved. Justice would involve who wins or loses by the different decisions, and which of
them are legal. Under integrity one would place a higher value on actions that are in harmony
with one’s personality and job function. Under trust one would consider which option might
undermine your loyalty to those involved or violate another’s trust.
Table 2: Ethics Case Decision Matrix
Alternatives
Alter Alter with Do Not Alter Do Not Alter
Criteria Cover and Report
Culturally 9 7 5 3
Appropriate
Transparency 2 5 8 7
Integrity 1 2 8 9
Justice 3 3 7 4
Caring 6 2 6 5
Trust 4 3 6 3
Page 7.1253.8

Total 25 22 40 31

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
The final example is a service-learning design project, in which groups of students work with
people of various levels of disability (usually in conjunction with a business or institution) to
design an object or process that will help them in their work. As they work toward solving this
problem, students are required to generate several alternative designs and to carefully evaluate
them before proceeding to develop the final design. The design norms need to be included as part
of the design/task specifications for the device or system. A decision matrix is then used to aid in
the evaluation phase. This brings the ethical implications of their designs to the forefront of their
minds.

7 Conclusions

According to Martin and Schinzinger 1, there are three components to ethical analysis:
normative/evaluative, conceptual, and descriptive. The expanded decision matrix that includes
design norms helps students to recognize all of these levels of thought. It requires them to
assimilate a set of norms for evaluative purposes. It requires them to conceptualize about the
ramifications of a given design as they rank items in the decision matrix, and it requires an
appropriate and complete set of descriptive facts about the design alternatives involved. Students
should be motivated to participate in these levels of thinking since these norms arise from their
own worldviews.

Engineering students often feel that their responsibility as engineers will be limited to designing a
good product while others (individuals, society, government) will decide how it will be used. This
view denies the values that are built in to technological objects implicitly as part of the design
process. We hope this approach can convince students that at least some ethical decision-making
falls under their agency as they participate in the design process.

These norms can also be applied in a broader context to guide engineers into ethically appropriate
careers and allow them to choose meaningful projects to pursue. Those who identify with these
norms might be more likely to do volunteer service projects, to work in disadvantaged
neighborhoods, and to find specific needs that should be met in order to serve society. This makes
explicit the calling of the engineer to serve society by creating technologies that improve human
lives.

[1] Martin, M. W., and R. Schinzinger, Ethics in Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993.
[2] Unger, S. H., Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer, 2 nd Edition, New York, John
Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[3] van Gorp, A., and I. van de Poel, “Ethical Considerations in Engineering Design Processes,” IEEE Technology
and Society Magazine, Fall, 2001, pp. 15 - 22.
[4] Harris, C. E., M. S. Pritchard, and M. J. Rabins, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 2 nd Edition,
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Stamford, CT, 2000.
[5] Pantazidou, M., and I. Nair, “Ethic of Care: Guiding Principles for Engineering Teaching & Practice,” Journal
of Engineering Education, April, 1999, pp. 205 - 212.
Page 7.1253.9

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education
[6] Haws, D. R., “Ethics Instruction in Engineering Education: A (Mini) Meta -Analysis,” Journal of Engineering
Education, April, 2001, pp. 223 - 229.
[7] Monsma, S. V. (ed), Responsible Technology, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI,
1986.

GAYLE E. ERMER is an Associate Professor of Engineering at Calvin College. She has an M.S. in
Manufacturing Systems from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and received her Ph.D. from Michigan State
University in 1994. Her research interests include pedagogical methods in effective engineering instruction, as
well as manufacturing systems and quality management. She can be contacted by email at germer@calvin.edu.

STEVEN H. VANDERLEEST is a Professor of Engineering at Calvin College. He obtained the M.S.E.E. from
Michigan Technological University in 1992 and Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign in
1995. His research interests include appropriate technology, engin eering and business use of the web and
intranets, and reliable systems through multi -version programming. He can be contacted by email at
svleest@calvin.edu.

Page 7.1253.10

Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Expositio n Copyright
Ó 2002, American Society for Engineering Education