A Principlist Approach For Thinking About The Social Impacts Of Engineering

A recent report from the National Academies of Science and Engineering with the Institute of Medicine highlights an emerging shift in thinking about the process of technology development. The report, commissioned by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, focused new attention on the conversation about social contexts and impacts of engineering, particularly the designing and implementation of new technologies. This report suggested a need for changes in the content of the conversation about social impacts of engineering to include broader issues such as social justice and respect for autonomy as well as in the diversity of participants of that conversation. These changes raise an important question for engineering educators: How do we best prepare engineering students to participate in the changing conversation about the social context and ethical impacts of their profession? Developing an answer requires a rethinking of paradigms and pedagogies for teaching about professional responsibilities and communication competence. In this paper we propose that the four principles of a common morality could provide a rigorous framework for engineers to engage with a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives on the social contexts and impacts of engineering. This principlist framework opens space for engineers to more richly explore the complexity of both direct and indirect social impacts resulting from their work. Thus, in this paper we argue that such a principle-based approach applied reflectively in the context of engineering design, is an important component of a response to these challenges of communication competence. The specification and balancing of the four principles that is essential to this principlist approach requires thinking together in specific contexts about the perspectives and potential social and ethical concerns of diverse stakeholders, ranging from corporations to culturally-diverse individuals, to animals and the environment. Developing an answer to the question of appropriate pedagogy certainly will involve significant dialogic interactions between engineering educators and educators in several disciplines in the humanities. While some engineering educators are focusing the emphasis of their work on these issues, the terminology, discourse communities, and educational practices associated with the topics of social impact such as autonomy and justice, for example, most often come from disciplines outside engineering and are not readily ascertainable by engineering students or even faculty members. As complex social and ethical issues are growing in emphasis in engineering contexts, engineering professionals as well struggle to frame their thinking and find effective language for necessary engagement with diverse perspectives. A principlist approach, applied through a series of case examples, could provide a framework within which engineers can responsibly and effectively communicate about the changing ethical content and with a more diverse range of participants in the conversation concerning the contextual influences and potential impacts of engineering on society