Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Ethical Education and Perspectives of Chinese Engineering Students: A Preliminary Investigation and Recommendations

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To develop more effective ethics education for cross-cultural and international engineering, a study was conducted to determine what Chinese engineering students have learned and think about ethics. Recent research shows traditional approaches to ethics education are potentially ineffective, but also points towards ways of improving ethical behaviors. China is the world’s most populous country, graduating and employing the highest number of STEM majors, although little empirical research exists about the ethical knowledge and perspectives of Chinese engineering students. When compared to engineering students in the US, Chinese engineering students (1) received less ethics education; (2) the form of the education they did receive stressed virtue ethics or the development of moral character; (3) conceive of ethics in contradistinction to the law, where ethics deals with matters of right and wrong not covered by legality. Based on these findings and research in moral psychology and behavioral ethics, recommendations are made for improving engineering ethics education both in China and abroad.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ABET stood for Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology until 2005. Since then, because of its broadened scope, it simply goes by the acronym ABET.

  2. In these two publications, ethical reasoning abilities were assessed using the Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT2). However, there are problems with this instrument and the theory of ethical reasoning on which it is based, a point further considered below.

  3. A situation such as this could be understood in contradistinction to, for example, medical ethics, the practice of medicine, work situations of doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners, and the nature and awareness of practitioners of the effects of medical interventions. With regard to medicine, practitioners can more directly perceive and understand the effects of their actions on patients.

  4. The University of Alabama Center for the Study of Ethical Development maintains a list of studies that have used the DIT and DIT2 (“Searchable Database of DIT Usage” 2017).

  5. Similarly, instruments used to study morality, such as surveys and vignettes, have typically been designed by professional psychologists and (more recently) philosophers, which could result in overlooking important components of folk, naïve, or lay conceptions of morality, and this problem can be compounded when conducting surveys in cross-cultural contexts (Peng et al. 1997; Vauclair and Fischer 2011). For these reasons, instruments using a combination of fixed and free-response questions can be more appropriate in assessing the ethical backgrounds and perspectives of engineering students cross-culturally and internationally, a claim further addressed below.

  6. Although Luegenbiehl found that Chinese engineering students conceive of ethics in terms of harm, as was mentioned above, there are reasons to doubt the sample in his study is representative.

  7. The Chinese translation can be found in the “Appendix”.

  8. To assess differences, when comparing only two groups, where outcome variables were categorical, Chi squared tests were performed, and the resulting degrees of freedom, test statistics, p-values, and effect sizes (as odds ratios) are reported. When comparing more than two groups—and the assumptions of the chi-squared test would be violated—where outcome variables were categorical, Fischer’s exact tests were performed, and the p-values, and effect sizes (as Cramer’s V) are reported. When comparing two groups, when outcome variables were continuous, bootstrapped independent t-tests were performed, and the resulting confidence intervals, test statistics, p-values, and effect sizes (as Pearson’s R) are reported.

  9. If the responses of SU students were reported, then these have been reproduced, as well as well as the results of tests assessing differences between SU and SJTU students. Among SJTU students, no significant differences were discovered between gender and quantitative question responses, although significant differences were discovered between major and year in school and responses to items 15, 19, and 24. Between SU and SJTU students, significant differences were discovered between all survey responses, with the exceptions of items 15, 19, and 24. These differences are reported and discussed below.

  10. The standardized residuals from the chi-squared table for the electromechanical instrumentation and maintenance technologies major and second-year graduate students were 2.7 and 1.9. Only the first was significant, at p < .00.

  11. The standardized residual from the chi-squared table for the civil engineering major was 2.3, a z-score significant at p < .05.

  12. The standardized residual from the chi-squared table for civil engineering and computer science were 3.5 and -2.3, z-scores significant at p < .00 and p < .05, respectively.

  13. As the assumption of equality of variance was violated, according to Levene’s test F(1, 808) = 10.69, p < .00, here bootstrapped results are reported.

  14. If this hypothesis were correct, then those who expect to face ethical issue would be more likely to find value in ethics education. Although those who expected to face ethical issues were more likely to find value in ethics education, this result was not significant, and the effect size was small (χ2 (4) = 7.2, p > .12, 0.18 Cramer’s V). Although the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the study reported here aimed at description rather than explanation. For that reason, it would be poor at discerning this effect if it did exist. To rectify this deficiency, future research is planned, further described below.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible by an Innovative Education Grant from Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2015–2016 and a National-Level Practical Innovation Project Grant (IPP8160) in 2013–2014. Additionally, the author gratefully acknowledges the support of professors Yu Hui, Jian Yang, Liu Wenjing, and Yang Yang, who allowed him to administer the survey for this study in their courses, and Wang Yuchen and Leng Xubo, who worked as research assistants to help translate and administer the survey, as well as enter response data into spreadsheets.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rockwell F. Clancy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 14 kb)

Appendix I: Chinese Translation of Student Survey from McGinn 2003

Appendix I: Chinese Translation of Student Survey from McGinn 2003

在本问卷中,如无特殊说明,则以√表示“是”, × 表示“否”,O表示“不清 楚、无意件”。请清晰地标记出你所选择的选项。

  1. 1.

    你的主修专业:_____________________________________________________

  2. 2.

    你目前所在的年级:大一、大二、大三、大四、研一、研二、研三、其他 (__________________________________________________________________) *(研究生请回答)你的本科学校、专业是?________________________________

  3. 3.

    你的国籍:_______________________________________________________ (如果并非中国大陆,请说明你是从几年级时来到大陆学习的)

  4. 4.

    你的性别:_________________________________________________________

  5. 5.

    你是否有意成为一名工程师? (√/×)(如果答案为“否”,请直接跳至第 8题)

  6. 6.

    你是否设想将会在工程师职业生涯中面临任何道德问题或冲突(√/×/O)

  7. 7.

    如果回答“是”的话,你认为最可能遇到的是哪种道德问题或冲突?

  8. 8.

    你在上海交通大学所学习过的工科科目中,是否有某一门探讨过有关工程伦 理道德的问题? (√/×)

  9. 9.

    如果回答“是”的话,是哪门课? 探讨的是什么问题?

  10. 10.

    你是否认为将工程伦理道德和冲突问题作为工科教育的一部分有必要且有 用呢? (√/×/O)

  11. 11.

    当你面对一个问题时,会是什么让你觉得这是一个道德问题,而不是一个法 律,美学或别种问题?

  12. 12.

    假设在工程师生涯初期你面临一个困难的伦理道德问题或冲突,何种教育背 景或教育方式,能使你更周密地考虑且以对社会负责的方法来应对呢?

  13. 13.

    在你看来,当职业生涯中面临工程伦理道德问题的挑战时,迄今为止收到的 大学教育在多大程度上能帮助你做出周密且有效的应对呢(请在 0,1,2,3,4 内打分,0 = 完全没有帮助;4 = 非常有帮助)

  14. 14.

    在工程实践中,当你面对伦理道德困难和挑战并需要作出决定时,哪些人或 事物会对你的工程伦理道德价值观、态度、信念和决定产生最显著的影响? (0 = 父母;1 = 师长;2 = 朋友;3 = 宗教信仰;4 = 其他_________(请具体说明)

  15. 15.

    是否有上海交通大学工科老师的某些课内外言行,使你觉得他们认为作为一 名工程师认真对待伦理道德和社会问题是非常重要的(√/×)

  16. 16.

    如果有的话,具体是什么言论或行动给你留下了这样的印象?

  17. 17.

    是否有上海交通大学工科老师的某些课内外言行,使你觉得他们认为作为一 名工程师认真对待伦理道德和社会问题是不重要的? (√/×)

  18. 18.

    如果有的话,具体是什么言论或行动给你留下了这样的印象?

  19. 19.

    工科老师中,是否有人具体教授过如何在现代社会中成为一个有道德并对社 会负责的职业工程师? (√/×)

  20. 20.

    如果有的话,你从中具体学到了什么?

  21. 21.

    如果有的话,你是怎样从他那里学到的? (如:课堂、单独咨询、项目中 提到等)

  22. 22.

    在上海交通大学的工程教育中,你是否得到过大意如此的信息:当今社会, 对做一个优秀的职业工程师的要求比起做一个技术型专家更多(√/×)

  23. 23.

    如果有的话,你是从哪得到这样的信息的呢?

  24. 24.

    如果你曾经受雇于一个与工程有关的职位(例如暑期工作或实习生工作), 你是否目睹或经历过任何你认为道德上值得怀疑,或不符合伦理道德的行为、操 作等(√/×/未参与过此类工作或实习)

  25. 25.

    如果是,请简要说明你遇到的情况。

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clancy, R.F. The Ethical Education and Perspectives of Chinese Engineering Students: A Preliminary Investigation and Recommendations. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1935–1965 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00108-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00108-0

Keywords

Navigation