Living Up to the Code

8/4/2019 Living Up to the Code

1/14

Living Up to the Code: Engineering asPolitical Judgment*

PATRICK LITTLE1, DARIN BARNEY2 and RICHARD HINK2

1 Department of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California, 917115990, USA.

E-mail: [email protected] Department of Art History and Communication Studies, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

E-mail: [email protected]

Nearly every code of professional ethics used in engineering begins with an affirmation of theengineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in theperformance of professional duties. Most of these also either explicitly or implicitly acknowledgethat the achievement of these high standards depends on the judgments made by practitioners indesigning structures, devices, systems and technologies. To date, almost all of the interpretationand analysis of this first canon has focused on situations in which an ethical failure will result in animmediate catastrophe such as a building's collapse or loss of lives, that is, on the safety and health

terms. Indeed, very little attention has been given to the `welfare of the public' aspect of the code.While the meaning of this key phrase is often presented as self-evident, the current approach to theprinciple often relieves engineers of the responsibility to engage actively in articulating their designchoices with the full substance of the ethical commitment it entails. Engineering ethics demandsthat, as part of their professional practice, they ask themselves (and others): what is the publicwelfare and how might my design choices either serve or undermine it? This paper asks what itwould mean for engineers to live up to a demanding interpretation of this fundamental ethicalcommitment, and explores the contribution engineering education might make to enabling them todo so.

Keywords: ethics; politics; technology and society; engineering education

INTRODUCTION

CODES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS reflect avariety of interests and circumstances, but innearly every case they begin with a sense of`higher purpose' for the profession. This is parti-cularly true in engineering, where such codesalmost always begin with an affirmation of theengineer's obligation to hold paramount thesafety, health and welfare of the public in theperformance of professional duties, notablydesign. To date, almost all of the interpretationand analysis of this `first canon' has focused onsituations in which an ethical failure will result inan immediate catastrophe such as a building's

collapse or loss of lives, that is, on the safety andhealth terms. Indeed, very little attention has beengiven to the `welfare of the public' aspect of thecode. While the meaning of this key phrase is oftentaken to be self-evident, failure to explicitlyconsider it may either relieve engineers of theresponsibility to engage actively in articulatingtheir design choices with the full substance of theethical commitment it entails, or it may leave themopen to the charge of inadequately consideringtheir own high standards. Engineering ethicsdemands that they ask themselves (and others),as part of their professional practice: what is the

public welfare and how might my design choices

either serve or undermine it? The current approachto teaching engineering ethics often reduces thewelfare of the public to situations of extreme crisis(such as being ordered to design an unsafe struc-ture) or a platitude to be ignored.

ENGINEERING CODES OF ETHICSIN THE US

The history of engineering in the US can betraced back to the earliest days of the republic [1];the first engineers served as officers in the Conti-nental army. As in Europe, engineers' first respon-sibilities were military. The term `civil engineer'was an umbrella term to distinguish a highly variedgroup of workers from their colleagues working onmilitary projects. The first engineering school inthe US was West Point, established in 1802,followed in the late 1840s by the first formal civilengineering school at Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute. Other military schools followed WestPoint's lead and established various engineeringprogrammes during the first half of the nineteenthcentury.

The modern engineering profession emerged inthe middle of the nineteenth century with the

intensification of forces of industrializationbrought about by the railroad. In the early nine-* Accepted 25 December 2007.

IJEE 2035

1

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 114, 2008 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 2008 TEMPUS Publications.


2/14

teenth century it was still possible to carry outlarge-scale projects without the help of a formallytrained engineeras Davis [1] points out, the ErieCanal `was begun about the same time West Pointsettled on a curriculum'. These new technologies,however, required an intimate knowledge of thesystem as a whole. Standardization across large

distances and interoperability were necessary tothe proper functioning of even the smallest partsof the system and required an entirely differentlevel of centralization. Under these conditions,knowledge of the `fundamental principles' of thetechnology was essential. In many respects, theemergence of the engineer as a professional paral-lels the emergence of the large-scale industrializedoperations in which they are `held captive'.

While the American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE) was established in 1867, engineeringcannot be considered a profession in the modernsense of the word until the twentieth century.Professions distinguish themselves from other`skilled occupations' by establishing formalized,standardized codes of conduct for their members[1]. By the turn of the twentieth century, thenumbers of engineers working in the UnitedStates had mushroomed. Many of these engineerswere young; committees were established by mostof the major engineering professional societies as away of passing down those accepted standards ofconduct to their younger colleagues. In manyways, the codification of ethical standards hadnever been attempted before because the societies'members simply had not seen a need for it.Another important feature of the process of

professionalization is the concerted effort madeto distinguish the èlite' engineer from the drafts-man, technician or craftsman. The professionalsees himself or herself as a `prestigious, learned,responsible individual whose superior qualitiesentitled him to high public esteem and position(and, implicitly, material reward)' [2].

The first serious debates suggesting that ASCEshould adopt a code of ethics took place in 1893when the code's proponents changed their languagefrom a question of `rules' for members to follow tothat of a common ètiquette' to guide professionalbehaviour[3]. Ultimately, board membersdecided acode of ethics was not necessary to protect thereputation of the professionafter all, attorneyshad nocodeof ethics but were considered a bona fideprofession in the eyes of the public.

Passed largely in response to several statesbeginning to regulate the role of the engineer,ASCE's first ethics code was adopted in 1914 andreflected the preeminent importance of the profes-sion's `honour' and `dignity'. Preferring to regulatefrom within rather than to submit to conditionsimposed on a state-by-state basis, the codeincluded six articles that dealt solely with therelationship between the engineer and the client,the professional reputation of members and beha-

viour required to maintain it, and how membersmay advertise their services [4]. Licensing of engi-

neers had become a reality in two states (withnineteen more to follow over the followingdecade)[3]; the code of ethics was seen as a wayto assert the autonomy of civil engineers on theirown terms.

The 1961 revisions to the code resulted in a muchlarger, comprehensive account of the professional

duties of the engineer. Yet while the expandedversion introduced specific explanations of thekinds of activities prohibited on ethical groundsand a reference to the `public interest' in thepreamble, the scope of the code remained essen-tially the same. The overarching concern continuedto be the professional relationships of engineers totheir clients and amongst themselves [5].

It was not until the 1970s that a broader discus-sion of the role of the engineer in society tookplace, resulting in the integration of several `funda-mental principles' and `fundamental canons' intothe code itself. In 1974 a task force assembled byASCE reported [6] that `professional engineershave always been aware of their obligations toserve society, and this has been implicit in theCode. But the obligation has not been spelled out.'

The Spiro Agnew affairin which the VicePresident accepted kickbacks from engineersserved as a catalyst for the rapid adoption of therevised ethics proposed by the Engineers Councilfor Professional Development [6]. In September1976, ASCE's Code of Ethics spelled out theresponsibility of engineers to use `their knowledgeand skill for the enhancement of human welfare'[7] as a fundamental principle of the profession.The so-called first canon of engineering was also

added, asserting that Èngineers shall hold para-mount the safety, health and welfare of the publicin the performance of their professional duties'.While the earlier provisions respecting professionalconduct and business relationships still constitutethe largest part of the Code of Ethics, the recogni-tion of the engineer's broader social responsibilityis a significant shift from earlier conceptualizationsof what it means to be a professional engineer.Over the course of this decade, the paramountcy ofthe public welfare was also codified in the ethicscodes of mostif not allother professional en-gineering societies in the United States [8-10].While authors such as Vesilind argue that thisnew code had as much to do with public relationsas with a genuine, association-wide concern for anexpanded definition of the social responsibilities ofthe engineer, by the 1980s the paramountcy prin-ciple had been enshrined as the guiding forcebehind engineering decisions [6].

The Guidelines to Practice under the Fundamen-tal Canons of Ethics [11] describe in further detailthe demands placed upon the engineer when ques-tions of the public welfare arise. Specifically, the`Guidelines' require engineers to `recognize thatthe lives, safety, health and welfare of the generalpublic are dependent upon engineering judgments,

decisions and practices incorporated into struc-tures, machines, products, processes and devices'.

P. Little et al.2


3/14

Engineers are expected to inform their clients oremployers of the consequences of their work on thesafety, health, and welfare of the public and areeven expected to act in a whistleblower capacitywhen their concerns are ignored. The final twosections under the first canonthose that suggestan engineer's role in civic affairs and improving the

environment proactivelyshift in their languageuse from the prescriptive `shall' to the suggestive`should'.

What does the addition of this newfoundconcern for public welfare and the environmentmean for engineering professors and those consid-ering the problems of engineering? Davis's defini-tion of the code of ethics is useful here [12];primarily, a code of ethics is a `convention betweenprofessionals'. Thus we can assume that profes-sional engineers, generally speaking, agree that it isnot their personal conscience that guides theirprofessional decisions, but those agreed upon toprotect the common values and interests of theprofession as a whole. Regardless of the engineer'sindividual outlook on sustainability or the publicwelfare, their actions must be guided by theconsensus of the whole.

Yet all this attention to the supposed para-mountcy of the public welfare seems to havebeen overshadowed by the other provisions ofthe first canon, namely those calling attention tothe more tangible concepts of health and safety. Ina survey of the literature on engineering ethics, thevast majority of texts interpret the concept of`public welfare' narrowly, making this potentiallybroad and wide-reaching concern one that is

essentially coterminous with health and safety [13].It is interesting and noteworthy that ASCE

nearly added an additional canon, dealing withsustainable development and the environment, in1983. The proposed amendment read:

Engineers shall perform service in such a manner as tohusband the world's resources and the natural andcultured environment for the benefit of present andfuture generations.

The guidelines accompanying the so-called `eighthcanon' used prescriptive language (i.e. `shall')requiring engineers to consider and `be concernedwith' the protection of natural and cultural envir-

onmentsit also included the obligation to`oppose or correct' any actions detrimental tothose systems [14]. In the end, the eighth canonwas abandoned [11], and replaced in 1997 by an(unenforceable) addition to the first canon thatrequired engineers to `strive to comply with theprinciples of sustainable development'.

NON-US PERSPECTIVES ONENGINEERING CODES

As noted above, the development of engineering

as a profession and the associated codes of ethicsare strongly dependent on the particular historical

situations in which practicing engineers find them-selves. Not surprisingly, then, there are a greatnumber and variety of professional societies andassociated codes of ethics around the world. Thesegroups range from what are essentially marketinggroupings to organizations that act with the forceof law. For many of the societies, the codes of

ethics are similar to those in the US (The Canadianand US codes, for example, are quite similar.) Ofmore interest, however, are those cases where theprofessional society has traced a different path, orwhere the code reflects substantially differentcultural and professional traditions. In this section,we examine several such examples.

European perspectives: France and GermanyThe development of the engineering profession

in France shared few of the features of its Amer-ican counterpart. In France, engineering wasandremains todaythe most respected occupation

within society. Because of this, French engineerswere never forced to go through the same self-interested process of professionalization in orderto secure their place in society and recognitionfrom the public. As Lucena [15] points out, it isassumed that anyone who has made it through therigorous selection process of the state educationalsystem has the ethical knowledge and is dutybound to perform in the name of the republic.

Furthermore, it has always been claimed inFrance that engineering is carried out in thepublic interest. The Corps des ponts et chausees,composed of state engineers and established in theeighteenth century, was charged from the begin-

ning with promoting `the complementary notionsof rational public administration in the generalinterest and planning on a national scale' [Smith,quoted in 15].

Nevertheless, and perhaps in response to codesof ethics in American engineering, the Conseilnational des ingenieurs et des scientifiques deFrance (CNISF) introduced a Charter of Engin-eering Ethics in 1997. The Charter is broken intofour sections: `The Engineer in Society', `TheEngineer and his Competencies', `The Engineerand his Profession', and `The Engineer and hisCallings (mission)'. It explicitly recognizes serviceand responsibility to the public, an awareness ofthe impact of technology on the environment, andprinciples of sustainable development. While theCNISF is less influential than its North Americancounterparts, its Charter indicates a commonunderstanding of the increasingly interconnectedrelationship between the engineer and the societyhe or she serves.

The experience of professional engineers inGermany, like that of most of the professions,was profoundly and irrevocably shaped byNazism, the Second World War and the Holo-caust. After having been successfully co-opted intoassisting and even supporting National Socialism

in the 1930s, the engineering profession needed tobe reformed and rebuilt in the postwar era. The

Engineering as Political Judgment 3


4/14

Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI), or Associationof German Engineers, began its post-Nazi incarna-tion at an international conference on Technologyas an Ethical and Cultural Task. This initiated anextensive collaboration between the VDI and(anti-Nazi) philosophers which continues to thisday. One of the key documents of this effort was

the Engineer's Confessions, which used spiritualand religious rhetoric to describe engineering as avocation. Specifically, the engineer `should placeprofessional work at the service of humanity . . .[and] should work with respect for the dignity ofhuman life and so as to fulfil his service to hisfellow men without regard for distinctions oforigin, social rank and worldview' (quoted in[15]). Lucena has written a history of theGerman experience, showing how it has culmi-nated in what must be considered among themost politically and socially engaging codes ofethics in the world [15].

Fundamentals of Engineering Ethics [16],adopted in 2002, begins by acknowledging thatengineers are `responsible for their professionalactions and the resulting outcomes', and goes onto say that `[e]ngineers are responsible for theiractions to the engineering community, to politicaland social institutions as well as to their employers,customers, and technology users' (italics added).These, in themselves, constitute a remarkablydirect appropriation of responsibility by the VDI,but the next statement in the code goes furtherthan any other we have seen. Section 1.3 states:

Engineers know the relevant laws and regulations of

their countries. They honour them insofar as they donot contradict universal ethical principles. They arecommitted to applying them in their professionalenvironment. Beyond such application they investtheir professional and critical competencies intoimproving and developing further these laws andregulations.

Notice that the VDI is not merely calling for itsmember engineers to follow the law, but to recog-nize that the law may be in conflict with ùniversalethical principles'. Further, the engineer is specifi-cally tasked to work to improve and develop lawsand regulations.

The second section of the Fundamentals ad-dresses the disposition which the engineer mustbring to bear in resolving conflicts and makingdecisions. This section of the code speaks, amongother things, to the need to consider `the impact onthe lives of future generations', including the needto maintain for them `the options of acting infreedom and responsibility'. The VDI calls on itsmembers to resist constraints and pressures,including `the forces of short-term profitability',and to `consider the values of individual freedomand their corresponding societal, economic, andecological conditions the main prerequisites to thewelfare of all citizens within modern society'. In

the resolution of conflicts, the VDI code offers thefollowing guidance:

In cases of conflicting values, engineers givepriority:

. to the values of humanity over the dynamics ofnature,

. to the issues of human rights over technologicalimplementation and exploitation,

. to the public welfare over private interests,

. to the safety and security over functionality oftheir technical solutions.

Engineers, however, are careful not to adopt suchcriteria or indicators in any dogmatic manner.They seek public dialogue in order to find accep-table balance and consensus concerning theseconflicting values [16].

Finally, in a third section, the code of ethicsaddresses the conflicts which may arise betweenmatters of law and conscience, including publicdisclosure.

What is perhaps most striking about this code ofethics is how much the overall structure seems toaddress explicitly what is offered implicitly in thefirst canon. Perhaps it is because the authorsrecognize from their own national experience thattechnology applied in the service of evil leads tocatastrophe, but for whatever reason, the VDIFundamentals of Engineering Ethics is a uniquedocument in the Western world.

The developing world: Zimbabwe and PakistanProfessional life in much of the developing

world has its roots in the former colonial powers,and, as such, the codes of ethics found usually taketheir cue from those countries and the United

States. Thus the Code of Ethics of the Board ofEngineers of Trinidad and Tobago [17] reads morelike a legal document from an earlier time than aphilosophical statement. There are, however, inter-esting examples of how the professional engineer-ing societies have shaped their codes to their ownconcerns.

The Zimbabwe Institution of Engineers (ZIE)acts with the force of law in regulating itsmembers' professional activity. The Code ofConduct [18], as modified in 1998, includes as itsfirst rule, À member, in the course of his employ-ment and in pursuance of his profession, shall havedue regard for the public interest'. The remainderof the code generally consists of the traditionalobligations to clients and other practitioners,including honesty, competency, and appropriatedecorum, except for an addition to the first canon.Rule 1.1 states that À member . . .shall have dueregard to the Environmental Code of ProfessionalPractice approved by the Council of the Institu-tion'.

The Environmental Code of Professional Prac-tice [19] (ECPP) was adopted in 1997, and carriesregulatory authority in law. While the ECPP wasdrafted in a manner which allows for considerableinterpretation and professional judgment, it speci-

fically holds engineers accountable for followingsound and èffective management of environmen-

P. Little et al.4


5/14

tal issues'. For example, it states that, `Membersshould be aware that non-compliance with theprovisions of this code may be relevant whenconsidering disciplinary matters' and goes on that`failure to adhere to the provisions of this Code . . .may evidence an infringement of the ZIE's Rulesof Conduct which could lead to disciplinary

proceedings'.The ECPP offers a definition of the environment

that, in addition to flora and fauna, includes `allcultural, social and economic conditions that influ-ence the life of a community'. It also calls uponengineers to `recognize that your duty to thecommunity takes precedence over personal andother partisan interests'. In terms of specificactions, the ECPP calls on members to `discussenvironmental issues, developing technology andregulatory requirements with others', `bring majorpotential environmental damage to the attentionof those in authority in a responsible manner', and`to join debate over drafting and implementationof legislation'.

The current political climate in Zimbabwe,however, reminds us that an engineer's ability tolive up to principles such as these depends heavilyupon the possibilities and constraints establishedby the political system more generally. Underfundamentally undemocratic conditions such asthose that persist in Zimbabwe, meeting ethicalobligations such as these could place the engineerin conflict with the existing regime. Under suchcircumstances the stakes and ethical complexity ofliving up to the code escalate considerably. Similarconcerns can be raised to the practice of engineer-

ing in any country subject to authoritarian rule.As both an Islamic country and a culture in

which English is widely spoken and used profes-sionally, Pakistan provides a possible window intoengineering ethics in the Islamic world. The ethicalguidelines of the Pakistani Engineering Council,the legally constituted body for the regulation ofengineering in that country, are organized into twosections. The first, the Code of Ethics, is unlike anycode of ethics found in the West. It begins

Whereas Allah enjoineth upon His men faithfully toobserve their trusts and their convenience; that thepractice and profession of engineering is a sacred trustentrusted to those whom Nature in its magnificentbounty has endowed with this skill and knowledge;that every member of the profession shall appreciateand shall have knowledge as to what constitutes thistrust and covenant, and; that a set of dynamic prin-ciples derived from the Holy Quran shall guide hisconduct in applying his knowledge for the benefit ofsociety [20].

The Code of Ethics then includes a series ofprecepts and commands taken from the Quran,such as `Allah commands you to render back yourtrust to those to whom they are, and that when youjudge between people, you judge with justice. Allahadmonishes you with what is excellent'. And `Fulfil

the obligations'.This approach to a code of ethics appears to

contradict Western ideas about the secular, scien-tific and independent nature of engineering prac-tice. The standard approach to the grounding ofethical codes in the Islamic world, however, is tobegin with religious belief and values, and onlyextend guidance from these. In an analysis ofjournalistic ethics and Islam, Mohamed [21] high-

lights that any code of ethics begins with theprinciple of piety (taqwa), then looks to centralpillars or concepts, such as oneness (tahwid) andjustice ( adl). It is only in the light of these prin-ciples that specific actions have moral or ethicalmeaning. Thus by basing the code of ethics on theQuran, the Pakistani Engineering Council isproviding a basis intended to make ethical deci-sions consistent with the other aspects of thepractitioner's life. (It goes without saying thatthere is an inherent tension for non-Islamic engi-neers who practice the profession in Pakistan.)

Specific governance of professional behaviour isset forth in an associated Code of Conduct [22].This document reads in much the same way as thecodes of ethics adopted by the engineering societiesin the West in the 1970s, when the code wasadopted. Focused primarily on individual behaviorand interaction with the client, the code alsocontains a version of the paramountcy principle,albeit in a later canon. Codes of conduct such asthese are arguably a reflection of the secularcharacter of the profession as it has developed inthe West. By subordinating the Code of Conductto the Code of Ethics, the Pakistani Council ofEngineering appears to be confirming that, withintheir tradition, ethical standards derived from

religious principles are prior to, and the necessarycontext of, standards of conduct.

The subject of codes of ethics and cross-culturalrelationships has recently been the subject of aworkshop sponsored by the United StatesNational Research Council, the Academy ofSciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and theAcademy of Medical Sciences of the IslamicRepublic of Iran [23]. The participants took partas private citizens and did not necessarily representeither their governments or their professionalsocieties. In addition to supporting calls for moreinteraction, the group examined the bases of ethicsand ethical codes in their cultures. Their reportreinforces Mohamed's point regarding the reli-gious foundation of professional ethics in Islamicsocieties.

POLITICS AND ENGINEERING

It is a safe bet that relatively few young men andwomen embark on a career in engineering becausethey want to do politics. Similarly, it is unlikelythat many practicing engineers understand theirwork as political. To be sure, working engineersregularly experience the frustration of something

called `politics' standing in the way of getting thereal the job done. In this instance, politics is



6/14

understood pejoratively, in the sense of rivalsseeking competitive advantage, or winners placat-ing losers either following or in advance of theirloss. In this sense, when a practicing engineer isforced by circumstance to do politics, it is under-stood to be doing something other than engineer-ing, something that must be tolerated but which is

not intrinsic to the practice. Engineering is engin-eering, but that is `just politics'. Engineers todayare well-trained to integrate into their practice atleast some degree of concern for the rectitude oftheir professional decisions and conduct, to actresponsibly and to tell the truth. This is thecustomary domain of professional engineeringethics. However, as Winner has pointed out [24],there is a point `where ethics finds its limits andpolitics begins . . . when we move beyond questionsof individual conduct to consider the nature ofhuman collectivities and our membership in them'.It is precisely beyond this point, the point whereethics ends and politics begins, that most profes-sional engineers understand their practice as notrequiring them to venture.

This attitude toward the relationship betweenthe technical and the political is not peculiar toengineers. It agrees with a more general culturalorientation in technological and scientific societies,in which the technical and the political are held tobe separate and distinct: politics is one thing;technology is another. This separation accom-plishes a great deal for science, engineering andtechnology. On the one hand, it serves as the basisfor the relative prestige, privilege and power ofscience and scientists, technology and engineers.

For, in distinction to the subjectivity, irrationalityand contingency that rules in most social domains,here is thought to be a realm in which disinterest,objectivity, neutrality, efficiency and method arethe currencies of truth. On the other hand, separ-ating the political and the technical serves toinsulate the latter from the former, and to circum-scribe the social and political responsibilities borneby practitioners of science and technology, leavingthem free to seek out the one best way. No matterthat design criteria such as efficiency, effectivenessand economy are, in fact, deeply subjective,historically situated, and socially constructed stan-dards. To conflate the political and the technical isto risk undermining the status of science andtechnology as central legitimating principles inour society, and it is also to ask too much ofengineers and scientists.

Or is it? Consider the first canon and its invoca-tion of `engineering judgements, decisions andpractices'. Judgement, decision and practice areall political words, and they signify far more thanmerely technical or scientific considerations. In thefirst place, the context in which engineers practiceis always political, in the sense that it is formed bypolitical judgements about desirable ends, and byrelationships in which power is differentially

distributed. Second, as this canon recognizes, the judgements, decisions and practices of engineers

become embodied in the structures, machines,processes and devices they make and these, inturn, are implicated in the well-being of societymore generally. Thus, the judgements and deci-sions engineers make in practicing their vocationare never ``just technical.'' This implies both thatengineering is not different from a range of other

social practices, and that engineers bear a specialresponsibility to engage in their practice, at leastpartially, as if they were doing politics.

As suggested above, one reason why engineersmight be reluctant to recognize their practice asinherently and necessarily political is the dimin-ished and pejorative sense in which `politics' hascome to be regarded in contemporary culture. Inthis context, politics is typically understood as acynical, strategic conflict between self-interestedactors with competing agendas, whose only appar-ent motivation is private advantage, or theperverse satisfaction that comes with victory overothers. On a small scale, we see politics of this sortin the incessant jockeying for position by peopleand groups we encounter daily in our professionaland personal lives. On a larger scale, we aresubjected to this version of politics in the dispirit-ing media spectacle of partisan competition for theseat of government, a game whose incentivesrecommend that one should never say what onemeans, or mean what one says.

Fortunately, our imagination need not belimited to the impoverished meaning attached topolitics in the current climate. A more robustconception might more readily suggest to engineersthe positive ways in which their work can be

understood as political. At its core, politicsconcerns judgement, in particular judgementabout good ends, and about just means for reach-ing towards them [25]. Politics is about makingjudgements about what we ought to do, and howwe ought to do it. In making these judgements, weset out what we think we should be and, incarrying them out, we become what we are. Judg-ment of this sort is also political by virtue of itspublic character: political judgement is carried outin public, by public persons, in a manner that takesinto account or addresses the public nature andimplications of the things under consideration. Aspublic judgement about public things that havepublic implications, politics is the very opposite ofthe sort of private calculation of private interestsfor private advantage that characterizes so muchof what we mistakenly label `politics' today. This isnot to say that politics has nothing to do withcompeting interests. To the contrary, political judgement about what is good and what is just isnot some abstract, formal practice. Rather, it isprecisely because competing interests, relation-ships and distributions of power are at stake in judgements about the good and the just thatpolitics has a substance that elevates it above thestatus of a mere game.

The form with which political judgement is mostreadily identified is dialogue, in which people give

P. Little et al.6


7/14

their reasons and take those of others, andtogether deliberate upon an outcome that all canaccept, even if they do not all agree [26.] It is not byaccident that this sounds conspicuously like whatgoes on in a design studio [27]. Political judgementusually results in some sort of action, and theactions arising from it can take many forms. We

are accustomed to think of actions such as votes,legislation, resource allocation, letters to theeditor, civil disobedience and even art as expres-sions of political judgement, but we need not stopthere. Bridges, solar arrays, mobile telephones andmissile guidance systemsthese things, too, arethe outcomes of judgements about good ends andthe best means to realize them, judgements inwhich engineers participate in a variety of roles.Such things are also deeply implicated in thefortunes of competing social interests, in socialrelationships and in the distribution of resourcesand power. If what goes on in a design studio looksa lot like political judgement, then it stands toreason that what comes out of a design studio, asthe expression of those judgements, can be under-stood in a political light. In order to make things,engineers make, or participate in making, politicaljudgments, and the things that result from these judgements are political things.

The idea that science and technology are poli-tical practices with political outcomes is one thathas received thorough treatment in the field ofscience and technology studies. Scholars in thisfield have worked to unsettle established notionsabout the progress of science and technologicaldevelopment, in which disinterested scientists and

engineers, motivated only by a pure desire forknowledge or efficiency, using wholly objectivemethods, produce facts and artifacts that are, inthemselves, neutral. Social studies of science andtechnology paint a different picture. In this picture,scientists and engineers embody and respond to thediverse social, political and economic interests ofthe societies and communities in which their workis situated, they absorb and reproduce epistemol-ogies and discourses that reflect those interests,and work in settings that are shot through withpower, negotiation and accommodation. Finally,their work yields facts and artifacts that arepolitical both because they materialize the politicsthat generated them and because their appearancein the world always has implications that canproperly be described as political [24] [2730].This account departs radically from the one thatprevails in our culture, in which science andtechnology are more often presented so as toremove deeply political judgments from public,political consideration and relegate them to theprivate spaces of boardrooms, laboratories anddesign studios, all in the name of efficiency,progress and prosperity. In this manner, scienceand technology are converted from disinterested,neutral forms and fruits of inquiry into ideology in

the strict sense of an operation that obscures anddenies the fact of politics [31].

On the account being advanced here, the poli-tical character of engineering arises before, duringand after the design of technological devices,processes and systems. The contexts and patternsfrom which decisions to invent, design and buildemerge are political insofar as they reflect judge-mentssometimes established, sometimes con-

testedabout good ends and the preferred meansto realize them, and insofar as they comprisecomplex configurations of interests, social rela-tionships and distributions of power. Thesepatterns and contexts are a significant determinantof when, why and how technology comes into theworld. Thus, among the ethical obligations ofengineers who understand their work as politicalis an ongoing critical engagement with the relation-ship between her professional practice and theinstitutionalized patterns and contexts in which itis situated [24]. This demands extension of theengineer's ethical attention significantly beyondthat which is typically encompassed by the concep-tual phase of engineering design. As mentionedabove, social studies of science and technologyhave taught us that design outcomes are rarely, ifever, a necessary, straightforward, objectiveaccommodation of facts and efficiency. Decisionsabout how to build, or how not to, reflect judg-ments about what is good and the best means toachieve it, and these judgements are made in anenvironment that is as political as it is clinical ortechnical, an environment saturated with compet-ing interests, complicated relationships, and powerdifferentials. This suggests that an engineer's ethi-cal attention must also be exercised within the

preliminary, detailed and final phases of design.Politics does not just precede the engineer's workas a designer of devices and systems, it defines asignificant portion of the work of design itself.

Engineers must exercise political judgementbefore, and during, design because of the politicsthat arise after design, once a device, system orthing is released into the world. Technologicalsocieties are culturally disposed to view technologyeither as completely neutral or, where somesubstantive character is assigned to technology,as primarily orientated towards the goods ofprogress, prosperity, variety and convenience.However, the argument that technologies aresimply neutral or primarily progressive is difficultto sustain: one can drive a car here or there, or notat all, but a city organized to prioritize automobiletraffic is radically different than a city made forwalkers, and it closes down as many options as itopens up; and, standing in the middle of a parkinglot beside a street with eight lanes but no pave-ment, it is not always clear how, why, or in relationto which alternative, this represents progress.Technologies are not neutral in their outcomes,even if there is a tremendous degree of contingencyin the manner in which individual technologies areappropriated and used. In this respect, technology

is much like other fundamental principles: anAmerican would never say that the principle of



8/14

freedom of expression is `neutral', or devoid ofsubstantive content that distinguishes it from itsopposite, simply because people can ùse' freedomof expression to say they hate their government aseasily as they can use it to say they love it. Despitethe fact that freedom of expression can be exer-cised in a variety of ways, it is far from neutral: it

embodies and structures a particular way of life indistinction to others; it establishes political rela-tionships, permission and prohibitions; and it isbound up with the distribution of political power.The same can be said of technology. Despite (or,perhaps, because of) the contingencies of its use inany given context, technology is implicated inparticular possibilities for social organization andrelationships, in the establishment and enforce-ment of permissions and prohibitions, and in thedistribution of economic, social and politicalpower. Arguably, this is precisely what is affirmedin first canon of ASCE Code of Ethics when it callsupon engineers to recognize that public health,safety and well-being, àre dependant upon engin-eering judgements, decisions and practices incor-porated into structures, machines, processes anddevices'. This does not indicate merely that some-one could get hurt if a system or structure is poorlydesigned; it recognizes that design itself can dogood, or do ill, in the world.

The ethical codes to which professional engi-neers already subscribe would thus seem toconfirm the insight of science and technologystudies that technology is a political matter in themost demanding sense of that term. This insighthas been expressed most clearly by Feenberg, in his

book Questioning Technology:

Technology is power in modern societies, a greaterpower in many domains than the political systemitself. The masters of technical systems, corporateand military leaders, physicians and engineers, havefar more control over patterns of urban growth, thedesign of dwellings and transportation systems, theselection of innovations, our experience as employees,patients and consumers, than all the electoral institu-tions of our society put together. But, if this is true,technology should be considered as a new kind oflegislation, not so very different from other publicdecisions. The technical codes that shape our livesreflect particular social interests to which we have

delegated the power to decide where and how we live,what kinds of food we eat, how we communicate, areentertained, healed and so on [28].

In a similar vein, Verbeek observes [32], `[w]hentechnologies are inherently moral entities, thisimplies that designers are doing `èthics by othermeans'': they materialize morality'. If this is true, itwould seem to have radical implications for thepractice of engineers who seek to adhere to theethical standards of their own professional codes.For while this commitment itself appears to benative to the ethical self-understanding of theengineering profession, the ethos necessary to live

up to it demands the sort of consistent cultivationfor which little room is currently made within the

actual practice of the profession. Living up to thecode in this respect would require that, alongsidetechnical and scientific creativity and rigor, engi-neers integrate into their practice what Winner hasdescribed as `political savvy and the capacity ofpolitical imagination'. This requires that, in theirpractice, engineers routinely ask a range of ques-

tions which are perhaps more foreign to theprofession than the ethical commitment whoseobservation necessitates them [24]: `For the sakeof what deeply meaningful ends are our technolo-gies well suited or ill suited? In response to whatcentral human needs are our techniques and instru-ments developed and applied? On the basis of whatfundamental orienting principles do our technol-ogy-based practices and institutions find their usesand their limits? In selecting a particular engineer-ing project, what kind of world do we affirm andseek to create?' It might seem that to ask this of anengineer is to ask her/him to be a philosopherbefore he/she is an engineer, but these are politicalquestions, not philosophical ones. They involvedeliberation upon ends and purposes, means andalternatives, reasons and arguments about needsand limits, and the substance of the goods to whichwe are committed, in common with others, inpublic encounters where such matters are onlyever provisionally settled, and demand constantrevisiting. This is the price of citizenship, and sotoo the price of being an ethical engineer.

ENGINEERING PUBLICS

The call to engineers to engage in their practicepolitically echoes the obligation to attend to thepublic welfare that is explicitly stated in most ofthe ethical codes that govern the contemporaryprofession. Among the more challenging questionsfacing engineers who would answer this call is:`Who, or what, is the public?' There is no easyanswer to this question. As Warner has written[33], `Publics are queer creatures. You cannotpoint to them, count them, or look them in theeye. You also cannot easily avoid them'. Arguably,the whole of Western political philosophy can bedescribed as a two-thousand year history of tryingto come to terms with these queer creatures, thesecurious abstractions that can be neither seen norignored, leastwise in a democratic context [34].

In the modern context, the term public came tobe associated with the assembly of otherwiseprivate (i.e. non-titled) persons gathered, whetherin-person or through various media, to express anddebate their common interests, and especially toaffirm or contest the legitimacy of establishedpolitical authority [35]. Modern public sphereshave never been completely inclusive, or freefrom structural conditions of class and genderdomination and subordination that seriouslyundermine images of the `generality' of publics

from the Enlightenment onward [36]. Still, it isduring this period that the word public comes to be

P. Little et al.8


9/14

associated, at least normatively, with notions ofinclusivity, equality, and commonality, and withshared spaces, resources, interests and modes ofdiscourse. More recently, postmodern critics havesought to problematize the public/private binary,arguing not only that its deployment serves toreproduce and naturalize the relations of domina-

tion and exclusion that have characterized itshistory, but also that the distinction betweenpublic and private is increasingly difficult todiscern and that, in any case, to speak of thepublic as a unified singularity in an age of multiple,nested, networks of diverse publics is to enact anuntenable reduction [37].

When an engineer begins a project to design awater treatment facility, should a previous require-ment be immersion in the history of westernpolitical thought concerning the nature of thepublic, publicity and the public sphere? Certainlynot, (though having this experience somewhere inthe engineer's educational background probablywould not hurt). Does the engineer need to beattentive to the complexity of the public whosewell-being is part and parcel of the commitment toserve by ascribing to the ethical obligations thatdefine the profession? Absolutely. Engineers cango a long way towards satisfying this need simplyby taking it seriously, and by questioning the waysin which the public and its interest are oftenmischaracterized. The public and its interestcannot be taken for granted: the public is notsimply an object out there waiting to be servedor observed, it is comprised of real people whomust be recognized and activated through ongoing

engagement. Given the considerable diversity oflocation, circumstance and identity with whichcontemporary North American society is blessed,this means that attending to the public interestreally means integrating into engineering practicean ongoing, good-faith effort to engage the inter-ests of multiple publics. With some notable excep-tions (such as, for example, engineering and designprojects that have direct environmental or healthimplications), the current institutional and profes-sional organization of engineering practice doesnot provide for this sort of engagement in its mostrobust forms. However, rather than serving toexcuse engineers from making such engagementpart of their customary practice, this institutionaland professional failure should constitute a reasonto try to do better.

In seeking to engage publics and their interests,engineers must also resist the temptation to acceptthe various surrogates that stand-in for publics incontemporary discourse. The public sphere is notsimply a market, and publics are not the same asshareholders or stakeholders, audiences, clients, orconsumers. A market is a mechanism for self-interested exchange of commodities and the calcu-lation of price, not a forum for publicly-interestedpolitical deliberation concerning human goods

that may be priceless. Shareholders are thosewho have something to gain in a transaction, and

stakeholders are those who have something to lose.In other words, they have interests, but theirinterests are typically private, not public. Audi-ences watch and listen, typically quite passively;publics engage, act, and express themselves.Clients make demands, and consumers makechoices from among the alternatives they are

offered; publics express their interests by makingclaims, telling stories, asking questions, and thecitizens that comprise them don't just choosebetween available alternatives, but also imaginealternatives to the choices they have been afforded.In each of these examples, what distinguishes thepublic sphere as a space of encounter and a publicas a social form, is a characteristic mode of addressthat is necessarily intersubjective. In other words,publics are not simply aggregations of isolated,individual subjects and their private interests andpreferences. They are, instead, social bodies whoseidentity and interests are constructed throughdeliberate and dynamic encounters that take avariety of forms, including dialogue, debate, narra-tive, celebration and conflict, to name but a few,via a variety of media. It is for this reason that thecomplexity of a given public's interest cannot bereduced to, or even registered by, that monstrousartifice we have come to identify with the publicitself in the modern agepublic opinion, as gener-ated by techniques designed to isolate membersfrom the very encounters and modes of addressthat constitute a public as something more thanmass of private interests.

All this means that taking the public goodseriously, by engaging publics in all their diversity

and complexity, will be a difficult task for engi-neers. Our suggestion is not that this will be easy,but rather that it is a challenge that engineersshould rise to, rather than shrink from, at least ifthey take seriously the ethical commitments oftheir profession. One thing that might assist engi-neers to imagine ways in which they might engagepublics is the realization that their work alreadydoes this in a decisive way. Publics are not born,they are made. As Warner has put it [33], a public`exists by virtue of being addressed'. To use theexample mentioned above, opinion polls do notsimply reflect or register the opinions of a publicthat exists independently of the poll. In an impor-tant sense, the public is constituted by the tech-nique of the poll itself, created by virtue of its beingaddressed in this way [38]. One of the implicationsof this insight is that there are many ways ofaddressing and, therefore, initiating a public.Laws, literature, speeches, the drawing of politicalboundaries, and architecture are obvious exam-ples. Each of these modes of address initiates apublic, which then goes about the work of shapingand expressing itself, to itself, as well as to othersand, in so doing, achieves its definition and inde-pendence [33]. Recent work in science and technol-ogy studies suggests that, among the modes of

address that initiate publics, we should includethose elements of the designed and built environ-



10/14

menttechnologies, artifacts, systems, struc-turesthat might properly called `things'. In hisrecent call for an `object-orientated democracy',Latour [39] has drawn attention to `the mattersthat matter, the res [thing] that creates a publicaround it'. Drawing on the philosophy of MartinHeidegger, Latour reminds us that things are

gatherings (of materials, forms, relationships,etc), and that things gather (people, concerns,locations, etc). In short, in designing and makingthings, engineers are also making publics. When abridge, or a weapon, a windmill or a computernetwork is designed, the engineer is enacting anaddress that initiates the self-organization of apublic. Obviously, the characteristics of the thing'sdesignboth what is present and what is absent;options taken and rejectedwill have an impor-tant influence on the shape and concerns of thepublic that is initiated. The engineer's attention tothe public and its welfare, then, must start righthere, in imagining, thinking about, and ultimatelyengaging with the potentially multiple publicsarising out of the thing she is making. This is adaunting prospect. In the contemporary contextespecially, the things engineers are called to designand build traverse spatial and temporal boundariesthat will require engineers to imagine and engagepublics in places they have never been, and futuresthey will never see. This, arguably, is a burden thatengineers have always faced. The only question iswhether they have been, or now are, prepared toface up to it.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGINEERINGPRACTICE AND EDUCATION

If we accept that engineering design is an inher-ently social and political activity, the naturalquestions we confront are how this might changeour practice of engineering and, by inference, howwe teach engineering.

The first question we might turn to is whetherthese ideas require any change at all in our profes-sional relationships and behaviour. The broadersociety which we engage is, after all, quite capableof placing demands and constraints on engineeringpractice when political will becomes manifest.Consider, for example, the rapid development ofenvironmental impact assessments in response tothe enactment of the Clean Air and Clean WaterActs in the 1970s. In a relatively short period oftime, society modified engineering practice withrespect to almost all civil engineering design activ-ities in the United States. Can responsible engi-neers simply accede to the demand to followenvironmental laws and consider their ethicalobligation satisfied? To do so assumes that thepolitical processes are sufficientin limitingoneself to this, one is claiming that the publicinterest is always, only, and adequately served by

the current legal system. This should worry us.Engineers had a role to play in the adoption and

implementation of the environmental reviewprocess before its adoption. As such, they weresitting at a place at the table where policy is set, notmerely followed. Essentially, the first canon is notreducible to `obey the law', a necessary but notsufficient condition for most practice, any morethan the presumption of safe designs are satisfied

by legally permissible but clearly dangerouselements.

The extreme form of the alternative, however, inwhich the engineer deeply considers the social,political and environmental effects of each andevery design decision, is equally problematic.Designers often do not and cannot know all thepotential inputs or possible outcomes of theirdesigns [40]. Consider the manner in which inven-tions are quickly and significantly appropriated byusers for new purposes [41]. The telephone, forexample, was originally invented and developed asa business tool, placed in the homes of executivesto increase their availability to their companies.Use by homemakers was neither intended nordesired in the initial design and marketing of thedevice. Yet the device was rapidly appropriated bywomen in the home, who ultimately redefined itspurpose and functionality into a wide range ofsocial circles [42]. The Internet was initiallyconceived as a pipeline for data transfer withinthe research community, and its capture by thepublic was resisted by some of the originaldesigners. If the trajectory of technology is notpredictable or knowable, how can the engineer beexpected to take responsibility for the effect onpublic welfare? Even developing first predictions of

the use and effects of technology can be timeconsuming and wrong. This concern is madeworse when one considers that much of contem-porary practice is done in the employ of largeorganizations that are likely to be unwelcomingto such apparent inefficiency, to say nothing ofattitudes which might challenge current practice.In addition, contemporary design processes oftendecompose systems to small enough elements thatdesigners may not know the final design config-urations in which their work will appear. Fewengineers want to heroically place themselves inthe path of the client, consumers, or the market. Ifevery engineering decision risks `paralysis byanalysis' and then places the practitioner in aposition of professional danger with employer,partners and the public, then implementationappears daunting, if not impossible.

One of the key lessons of the historical review ofthe ethics codes is that these systems served toenhance and clarify the work processes of theengineer. In essence, by clarifying what activitiesand behaviours were expected or prohibited of allengineers, they simplified the situation for eachengineer. A thoughtful examination of engineeringpractice through the lens of the first canon maygive us a way through this seeming dilemma.

Feenberg's analysis of technology [28] offersseveral important insights that can help us in

P. Little et al.10


11/14

determining when and how the engineeringcommunity and the individual designer can andshould act. These insights include a method fordistinguishing between what is characterized as`primary and secondary instrumentalizations',and also the recognition that social, political andeconomic values are made concrete to technology

primarily in the form of technical codes and rulesof practice.

By `primary instrumentalization', or `functiona-lization', Feenberg means that designers generallyfollow a practice of abstracting from the immedi-ate problem, characterizing it as generally as pos-sible at the outset, and then looking to a widevariety of solutions that might accomplish thedesired function. (Engineering designers usephrases such as `opening up the design space' forthe beginning stages of this activity.) The result iseither a technology, or, more often, a buildingblock toward a technology that is available foruse, but which has not been put into the ultimatesystem. The products of primary instrumentaliza-tion are as close to neutral as technologies get. Ashe has stated in lectures, `It's hard to distinguish acapitalist gear from a communist gear, or a Chris-tian lever from an Islamic one'. This is primaryinstrumentalization, pure and simple. `Secondaryinstrumentalization', or `realization', is where thesebuilding blocks are put together into systems withspecific ends in mind, and with direct impacts onsocial, economic and political systems.

How does this help us with respect to engineeringpractice? Primarily in allowing engineers to filterout, and possibly even exempt, substantial areas of

practice from intense scrutiny. Put simply, theengineer must make a judgment about whether ornot her practice is about the production of gears, orthe use of those gears in a more political way.

Feenberg's second insight is that the criticalplace where the social and political are embeddedinto technical decision-making is in the formula-tion of technical codes which define and constrainacceptable engineering practice. He gives the ex-ample of the changes which followed upon theAmerican with Disabilities Act (ADA). Initially,designing transportation and civil structures toallow access to persons with disabilities wasresisted as inefficient. Once set in concrete(literally, in the case of curb cuts and ramps) inthe building codes, however, the political decisiondefined engineering practice. This relationship canbe shown to go both waysif the technical codeindicates that particular technical decisions are`necessary', it is very difficult to generate thepolitical will to `change nature'. This is not todeny that good technical analysis often underliesengineering technical codes, but simply notes thatthe drawing of boundaries and limits on practicenever occurs in a vacuum. Recognizing this, aparticularly fertile area for exploration by engi-neers and designers would be to review the techni-

cal code with an eye to those items which reflectcontingent historical circumstances (i.e, politics,

broadly defined), and revisit their appropriateness.Similarly, a key role that could be played by theprofessional societies is in asking what changes tothe code would increase the ability of theirmembers to live up to the first canon more fully.

In terms of individual practitioners, however,there is a need for a set of guidelines to assist in

determining which decisions most clearly come upagainst the challenge of the first canon. Winner[24] has argued (not entirely convincingly, in ourview) that most of the important ethical implica-tions come about at the conceptual design stage,and particularly in the build/no build decision. Onecan argue that he understates many of the deci-sions made during preliminary and detaileddesigns, but it is clear that the ability to distinguishwhich design activities are likely to have far reach-ing effects would be valuable. There is a role herefor engineers and social scientists to collaborate todevelop tools that would facilitate this. Among theguidelines we recommend are consideration of theanticipated market size and penetration, the extentof change/significance in the lives of users, theextent to which the designed artifact is related tosocial interaction, and the ability of the artifact toinfluence or mediate social and power relations.(In a sense, we are arguing that engineers shouldtake their employers at their word when they arguethat every product the company introduces willrevolutionize the world.)

In those cases where the engineer wants to applysuch criteria, it may seem that a new set of skillswill need to be acquired, although an argument canbe made that these topics in many ways are already

incorporated into the conceptual design process astaught in most engineering programmes. Questionsthat need to be more sharply focused include:

. What are the communication skills that arerequired to hear perspectives not traditionallyvoiced in the design process?

. How can we recognize the publics that are likelyto be initiated by our design choices and parti-cipate with them?

. What are the `protections' that need to be builtinto our interpretations of the code if the firstcanon is to be lived up to? Note that an engineercan and indeed must decline certain actions

under the prevailing interpretations. Should thesocieties be providing analogous protection andrequirements for certain types of design? If so,how?

This leads us more broadly to consideration ofengineering education. Most engineering ethicstexts use the code of ethics as a foundation andorganizing principle. Yet most are relatively quieton the subject of this paper. Part of this is becauseit is easier and more convincing to students tofocus on health and safety issues than a considera-tion of public welfare and the good life. Similarly,design texts, particularly ones with examples

related to sustainability or the environment, offerinsights and guidance in stakeholder identification



12/14

and communications, but offer little instruction inhow the topic under discussion relates to thewelfare of the public. It is important to note thatsome engineering educators are introducing vari-ous flavors of the matters raised in this paper,albeit generally with materials they generate them-selves, and usually as a result of individual efforts

rather than a more general curricular design [4345]. What is needed is a set of tools that will enableand encourage educators to raise these issues in amanner that cultivates an ethical disposition.

The case study is the tool most widely used toteach engineering ethics, and with good reason.Cases are particularly effective tools for engagingstudents by having them place themselves into asituation they have likely never experienced firsthand. The cases are usually tailored to a singleissue, and the students can wrestle with thecomplexity of the problem before being guided toa correct consensusdon't take or offer bribes,don't pencil-whip tests, don't harass your employ-ees. These cases, useful as they are, offer usprecious little in terms of how engineering deci-sions may either liberate publics or reinforce powerrelations over them. We are aware of no caseswhich teach students how to listen to the voices ofthose who are excluded from design decisions, eventhough they may be significantly impacted bythem.

There are a variety of case studies which couldbe written in support of the first canon. Theseinclude:

. Cases where choices made by designers canaffect the quality of life of publics either posi-tively or negatively. These might include caseswhere economic development can occur, butwith an affect on pre-existing cultures andvalue schemes.

. Cases which challenge students to identify pub-lics in the design process more broadly than hasbeen traditionally done, particularly those whoare affected by the outcome who may not havean immediate economic role, or whose quality oflife is affected in non-economic ways.

. Cases which call for development of methods ofcommunicating the design process (both listen-ing and speaking) to publics with a radically

different world view or perspective.. Cases in which the set of alternatives under

consideration will result in the creation of sig-nificantly different publics.

. Cases which track the design process in a waythat reveals some of the different possible pointsof intervention into the design process by thepublic (i.e. before, during and after the project).

The argument might once have made that this sortof educational activity is not properly the functionof engineering educators, but more properlybelongs in the humanities and social sciencefaculty. While this is an appealing claim, given

the already loaded curriculum of most engineeringprogrammes, it is unconvincing for several

reasons. This is particularly so in light of therenewed focus on ethics stemming from theABET EC2000 guidelines. ABET, the accreditingagency for US engineering educational institu-tions, includes among the criteria for approvingprogrammes the requirement [46] that studentsattain `an understanding of professional and

ethical responsibility'. Pfatteicher sums up theresponse of the educational community [47],noting that `[f]ew engineering faculty object, inprinciple, to these changes, but many strugglewith the practical question of just how to instillthis understanding of ethics in their graduates'.Regardless of accreditation issues, engineeringstudents take their strongest affirmation of theprofession from other engineers. It was membersof the profession who adopted the challenginglanguage of the codes of ethics. It is their respon-sibility to teach engineering students how to live upto the code.

Finally, we are left with the question of the roleof codes of ethics in crossing boundaries of coun-tries and cultures. While it seems clear that thecodes are reflections of historical and local circum-stances, it is noteworthy how similar they are in thevarious environments. Virtually all the codes ofethics (or their associated codes of conduct) havesome version of the paramountcy principle.Almost every code recognizes that there is a needfor engineers to consider the effect of their work onsociety. All the codes anticipate a tension betweenloyalties to the profession, the client, and thepublic. This commonality suggests that there maybe core values and practices in the profession.

There are substantial local differences, however.We have noted the particular challenges engineersface under governments that are hostile to demo-cratic ideals, such as that in Zimbabwe. Their ownhistory has demanded that German engineers lookdeeply into their responsibility for the horrificapplication of technology during the Nazi period.Their response has led to a code that requiresengineers to consider the effects of technologywith a deep concern for others, even to the pointof resisting the law. The Pakistani Code ofConduct has been elaborated in the context of abroader, religiously-inspired Code of Ethics thatestablishes both the limits and the meaning of itsprovisions. In each of these examples, thesubstance of the ethical is derived from a notionof the good life that is particular culturally, andhistorically, even as its adherents express thissubstance in universal terms.

The relationship between the universal aspira-tions of engineering ethics and their necessarilylocal embodiment is an opportunity for engineer-ing practitioners, educators and students to reflectcritically upon the substance of their own ethicalcommitments, and their reasons for holding them.This, too, is an intrinsic part of living up to thecode. Just as there are many possible solutions for

any given design problem, the relationship betweenthe universalism of the paramountcy principle and

P. Little et al.12


13/14

the localism of its meaning and application is notstraightforward. In all contexts, there is work to bedone turning a foundational commitment to thepublic welfare into engineering practice. It is workthat demands political judgment and publicengagement. This, we have argued, is the ethicalwork of engineers.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors express their appreciation tothe Mellon Foundation, which provided some of the resourcesto allow Patrick Little to spend an academic year at McGill forthe purpose of this collaboration, and to the Canada ResearchChairs programme.

REFERENCES

1. M. Davis, Reflections on the History of Engineering in the United States: A Preface to EngineeringEthics, paper given at GTE Lecture at the Center for Academic Ethics & College of Engineering atWayne State University, November 19, 1992, online at http://ethics.iit.edu/resources/eethics.html(accessed 15 April 2007).

2. P. Meiksins, Professionalism and Conflict, Journal of Social History, 19 (Spring), 2001, pp. 403421.

3. S. Pfatteicher, Depending on Character: ASCE Shapes its First Code of Ethics, J. Prof. Issues inEng. Educ. Practice, 26, 2003.

4. American Society of Civil Engineers, Code of Ethics, 1914, CSEP Library, online at http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe/amer.soc.civil.engineers.html (accessed 15 April 2007).

5. American Society of Civil Engineers, Code of Ethics, 1961, CSEP Library, online at http://ethics.iit.

edu/codes/coe/amer.soc.civil.engineers.html (accessed 15 April 2007).6. P. A. Vesilind, Evolution of the American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics, ASCE J.Prof.

Issues in Eng. Educ. and Practice, 121(1), 1995, pp. 410.7. American Society of Civil Engineers, Code of Ethics, 1977, CSEP Library, online at http://ethics.iit.

edu/codes/coe/amer.soc.civil.engineers.html (accessed 15 April 2007).8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Code of Ethics, 1976, CSEP Library, Online at http://

ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe/amer.soc.mechanical.engineers.k.html (accessed 15 April 2007).9. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Code of Ethics, CSEP Library, online at http://

ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe/inst.electrical.electronics.engineers.2006.html (accessed 15 April 2007).10. National Society for Professional Engineers, Code of Ethics, 2006, CSEP Library, online at http://

ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe/nat.soc.pro.engineers.jan.2006.html (accessed 15 April 2007).11. American Society of Civil Engineers, Code of Ethics, 1997, CSEP Library, online at http://ethics.

iit.edu/codes/coe/amer.soc.civil.engineers.html (accessed 15 April 2007).12. M. Davis, Thinking Like an Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession,

Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20(2), 1991.13. K. Kipnis, Engineers Who Kill: Professional Ethics and the Paramountcy of Public Safety,

Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1(1), 1981, pp. 7791.14. P. A. Vesilind and A. S. Gunn, Sustainable Development and the ASCE Code of Ethics, ASCE J.

Prof. Issues in Eng. Educ. and Practice, 124(3), 1998, pp. 7274.15. J. C. Lucena, G. L. Downey, and C. Mitchum, Engineering Ethics in Global Perspective, in D.

Johnson (ed.), Engineering Ethics Reader, MIT Press, Cambridge, forthcoming.16. Verein Deutcher Ingenieure, Fundamentals of Engineering Ethics, VDI, 2002, online at http://www.

vdi.de/vdi/english/index.php (accessed 15 April 2007).17. Board of Engineering of Trinidad and Tobago, Code of Ethics, 1985, online at http://www.boett.

org (accessed 17 April 2007).18. Zimbabwe Institution of Engineers, Rules of Conduct, ZIE, Harare (1998).19. Zimbabwe Institution of Engineers, Environmental Code of Professional Practice, ZIE, Harare

(1997).20. Pakistan Engineering Council, Code of Ethics, 2005, online at http://www.pec.org.pk/code_ethics.

htm (accessed 15 April 2007).21. Ali Mohamed, Journalistic Ethics and Responsibility in Relation to Freedom of Expression: an

Islamic Perspective, presented to The Roundtable Discussions, In Search of Global Media Ethics,University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, Cape Town, South Africa

(2007).22. Pakistan Engineering Council, Code of Conduct, 1978, online at http://www.pec.org.pk/code_

conduct.htm (accessed 15 April 2007).23. National Research Council, Committee on the Experiences and Challenges of Science and Ethics in

the United States and Iran, The Experiences and Challenges of Science and Ethics: Proceedings of anAmerican-Iranian Workshop, National Academies Press, Washington, (2003).

24. L. Winner, Engineering Ethics and Political Imagination, in P. T. Durbin, (ed.), Philosophy ofTechnology II: Broad and Narrow Interpretations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,Netherlands (1990).

25. R. Beiner, Political Judgment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1983).26. J. Habermas. Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification, Moral

Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1995).

27. B. Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press (1986).

28. A. Feenberg, Questioning Technology, Routledge, New York (1999).29. Jim Johnson (Bruno Latour). Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a

Door-Closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 1988, pp. 298310.



14/14

30. T. Pinch and W. Bijker, The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology ofScience and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other, in The Social Construction ofTechnological Systems, (eds). W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press(1992).

31. J. Habermas, Technology and Science as Ideology, Toward a Rational Society, Boston: Beacon(1970).

32. Peter-Paul Verbeek, Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation, Science,Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 2006, pp. 361379.

33. M. Warner, Publics and Counterpublics, Zone Books, New York (2002).34. H. Arendt, The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press (1958).35. J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. T. Burger, MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA (1989).36. N. Fraser, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to a Critique of Actually Existing

Democracy, in C. Calhoun ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge MA,(1992), pp. 109142.

37. M. Poster, What's the matter with the internet?Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (2001).38. P. Bourdieu, Opinion Polls: A `Science' Without a Scientist, In Other Words: Essays Towards a

Reflexive Sociology, trans. M. Adamson, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (1990).39. B. Latour, From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or, How to Make Things Public, in Making Things

Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge (2005).40. T. Swierstra and J. Jelsma, Responsibility without Moralism in Technoscientific Design Practice,

Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 2006, pp. 309332.41. Slack, Jennifer Daryl, and J. Macgregor Wise. Articulation and Assemblage, in Culture +

Technology: A Primer, 11533, New York: Peter Lang (2006).42. Michele Martin, `Hello Central' Gender, Technology and Culture in the Formation of Telephone

Systems, Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press (1991).43. R. Devon and I. Van de Poel, Design Ethics: The Social Ethics Paradigm, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 20(3),2004, pp. 461469.

44. S. H. Unger, How Best to Inject Ethics into an Engineering Curriculum with a Required Course, I.J. Eng. Educ., 21(3), 2005, pp. 373377.

45. M. Brumsen, Ethics in the Netherlands: The Role of Professional Associations, Universities andLaw, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 21(3), 2005, pp. 391401.

46. ABET, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, Baltimore, MD: ABET (2007).47. S. Pfatteicher, Teaching vs. preaching: EC2000 and the engineering ethics dilemma, J. Eng. Educ.

90(1), 2001, pp. 137142.

Patrick Little is the J. Stanley and Mary Wig Johnson Professor of Engineering Manage-ment at Harvey Mudd College, where he also directs the Engineering Clinic. His interestsinclude transportation systems, reliability theory, and engineering education. He completedthe BA in Philosophy at St John's University (1977), and the SM in Transportation (1981)

and Sc.D. in Civil Engineering (1991) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He isco-author (with Clive Dym) of Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction.

Darin Barney is Canada Research Chair in Technology & Citizenship as well as AssociateProfessor in the Department of Art History & Communication Studies at McGillUniversity in Montreal. He is the author of Communication Technology: The CanadianDemocratic Audit (UBC Press: 2005); The Network Society (Polity Press: 2004; secondprinting 2006); and Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of NetworkTechnology (UBC/Chicago/UNSW 2000). In 2003, he was awarded the inaugural SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Aurora Prize for outstandingcontribution to Canadian intellectual life by a new researcher and was selected in 2004as one of fifteen `Leaders of Tomorrow' by the Partnership Group for Science andEngineering.

Richard Hink is a doctoral candidate in communication studies at McGill University inMontreal. His research explores the social and political-economic consequences ofglobalization and technological society, with a particular emphasis on media and structuresof communication. He holds Bachelor and Master of Arts degrees from the School ofInternational Service at American University in Washington, D.C.

P. Little et al.14

Living Up to the Code

Documents

Transcript of Living Up to the Code