Session S1F RIGHT PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR: A CLASSROOM EXERCISE USING PROFESSIONAL CODES Marilyn A. Dyrud1 Abstract — Codes of ethics are controversial, but they can be useful pedagogically. This paper offers a brief look at the professional literature about codes and details a classroom exercise intended to increase student awareness about the expectations and standards of professional behavior. Index Terms — applied ethics, codes of ethics, engineering, pedagogy
INTRODUCTION The value of professional codes is debatable and the subject of a substantial body of professional literature. Some theorists suggest that codes embody a mythic ideology which praises professional virtues, such as independence, wisdom, and altruism, that do not actually exist [4]. Other take an opposite approach, noting that codes extol traits such as integrity, public-spiritedness, and confidentiality and provide an outline of acceptable professional behavior [8]. Many students, however, have either a vague notion of what codes are or are oblivious to their existence. They may view ethics as something mysterious to be absorbed by osmosis while on the job. In an effort to educate students as to the content and value of their professional codes, I use a simple exercise as the first writing assignment in my professional ethics course. Students are required to obtain their professional code, write a memo which responds to a number of items, and conduct an in-class follow-up session focused on comparing their findings. Since this course includes students from many majors, it offers an excellent opportunity to focus on commonalities between professions. This term, for example, I have students majoring in computing, civil engineering, electronics engineering technology, mechanical engineering technology, management, applied psychology, accounting, nursing, health sciences, and medical imaging technology. This paper briefly examines some of the literature on professional codes, explains the assignment, examines student
responses, and details common factors in a variety of codes of conduct. THE LITERATURE Engineering codes of ethics are relatively recent, compared to those of other professions such as medicine and law. Although the first engineering organization, the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, emerged in 1848 [1], the first engineering code did not appear until 1911, from the American Institute of Consulting Engineers, followed by codes from the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (a forerunner of IEEE) in 1912, and ASME and ASCE in 1914. These early codes focused on the engineer’s responsibility to client and employer. It was not until the 1947 ECPD code that language promoting larger societal concerns appeared [3, 6], stemming, some feel, from the Holocaust and other World War II atrocities made possible by the complicity of professionals, including engineers. Codes are controversial and not supported by all ethicists or professionals. Indeed, as Heinz Luegenbiehl notes, the results of a 1980 survey conducted by Chemical Engineering revealed that only a handful of respondents, out of 4,318, mentioned their professional codes. Codes, Luegenbiehl argues, impose values on professionals and are generally ineffectual [6]. John Ladd, preeminent philosopher at Brown University, argues along similar lines. Codes, he explains, particularly those with a disciplinary component, are antithetical to ethics itself, which is “an open-ended, reflective and critical intellectual activity” that is basically self-directed because ethics recognizes rational humans as autonomous moral agents. Furthermore, codes can have “mischievous side effects,” including complacency and superficial selfcongratulations, and can be used as a “cover-up” for unethical actions. Most objectionable to Ladd is the notion that professional societies are actually “creating” ethics by codifying morals, thereby belying the rich tradition of discussion and deliberation [5].
__________________ 1
Marilyn A. Dyrud, Communications Department, Oregon Institute of Technology, 3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601;
[email protected]
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1F-1
Session S1F Writers of engineering ethics textbooks, however, take an opposing stance. Martin and Schinzinger explain that codes fulfill a “support function” and “capture the essential substance of professional ethics” [7]. Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins suggest that codes actually represent an agreement with the public regarding professional behavior and that codes “articulate shared standards of professional ethics” [3]; Charles Fledderman notes that codes provide “a framework for ethical judgment” [2]. Stephen Unger also presents a compelling argument that a code of ethics “contributes to defining a profession” [9]. Applying engineering codes to a specific case, Michael Davis examines the Challenger disaster, focusing on Robert Lund, the Morton Thiokol vice president of engineering, who clearly departed from his code when he recommended launching the shuttle. Lund’s fault lies, Davis argues, with his capitulation to management, as opposed to engineering, thinking, specifically regarding risk. By not acting in accordance with his code, Lund “let down all those engineers who helped to build the practice that today allows engineers to say no in such circumstances with reasonable hope that their client or employer will defer to ‘professional judgment’ and that other members of their profession will aid them if the client or employer does not defer.” According to Davis, engineers should support their codes for several reasons: they offer protection from harm, they help create a working environment amendable to ethical behavior, they support the profession itself, and they help define responsibilities [1]. While the value of codes may be questionable theoretically, it is clear from Davis’ analysis of Challenger and from other writers in applied ethics that codes do serve several useful functions for the professional engineer. And college students certainly profit by reading and discussing the codes relating to their majors.
THE ASSIGNMENT The assignment itself (see Figure 1) is relatively simple: it asks students to find the code for their area of interest, examine it for currency, explain professional boundaries and limitations, note ethical issues mentioned, and give their reactions. Students are able to locate their professional codes easily, thanks to a number of websites which either reprint the codes or link to code sites. Professional organization websites usually include the appropriate codes, and others, such as the “Code of Ethics Online Project” at the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, collect codes from a variety of areas. The CSEP site includes over 850 codes from professions ranging from engineering to
nursing to social services and is useful for faculty and students alike.
STUDENT REACTIONS Student reactions generally encompass three areas: those who are unaware that a code exists for their field, those who feel overwhelmed by the language and expectations in the code, and those who have previously seen their code and feel confident that they can live up to it. The difference in initial reactions may be due to the varying natures of codes themselves. Some are inspirational, taking broad strokes and providing general guidelines for professional behavior, such as the “Fundamental Principles” and “Fundamental Canons” common to all engineering codes. Others are regulatory; they are more specific and seek to control behavior, as in business and corporate codes of ethics. And still others are adjudicatory, such as the very lengthy APA (American Psychological Association) code. The language is precise and legalistic, as the code is used in court hearings and is itself a legal document. The Newbies Typically, about 25% of students in my class have never seen, or even heard of, their professional code of ethics. Chris, an electronics major, notes, “I did not know that such things existed.... I think it is great that they are available. I think they are needed very much in some professions. These codes all seem to be common sense.” Ed, a health sciences major who is preparing for a career in physical therapy, suggests that standards are perhaps too high: “My initial reaction to this code was that PTs [physical therapists] are held to high standards and expectations, some of which seem beyond the reality of our society.” And Rebecca, an applied psychology major, is surprised both by the length of her code, about 125 pages, and its detail: “After reading the APA code of ethics, I feel much more informed and interested in the field of psychology and am glad that I was given the opportunity to fully read it’s [sic] code of ethics as I may not have otherwise. Although the standards are lofty and cause one to truly question one’s desire to be committed to this field, I believe that as a professional I would feel comfortable living up to these standards.”
0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 © 2000 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2000 Kansas City, MO 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1F-2
Session S1F Date:
January 5, 2000
To:
PHIL 331 students
From:
M. Dyrud
Subject:
Codes memo, due January 19
Assignment Locate and xerox/print out the code of ethics for your professional field. If you are in engineering or engineering technology, please do not use the NSPE code; find the one for your particular area (IEEE, ASME, ASCE, etc.). Read the code carefully and write a one- to two-page, single-spaced memo to me that addresses the following (you may use this memo as a formatting guide):
