Thesis! At last!

Professor Roberts in the Philosophy Department at OSU hands out a short form to all the Masters students she advises, containing a series of questions that should be answered in a few sentences. Once complete, this should provide a good outline for your thesis. It’s basically a stripped-down version of my thesis, not including what will become the copious amount of supporting materials, of course.

Here are my answers to the major questions in that short form:

1. What is the problem/question?

   Engineers in the United States carry out their work using a variety of background assumptions about ethics that may or may not be stated or made apparent to engineers. These assumptions, which are informed by observable values and beliefs, are part of the intellectual framework that comprises the individual and collective standpoints of engineers. What are the background assumptions, taught explicitly or tacitly, that create and inform the ethical standpoint of engineers? Are there local, contextual forms of engineering ethical decision-making that may lead to more ethical, more effective outcomes?

2. Why is this a problem/question?

   Unstated and unacknowledged background assumptions influencing ethical decision-making are (completely or relatively) unavailable for critical scrutiny and may even mask their own influence, leading to problematic or less-effective ethical decision-making processes.

3. Why does this problem/question matter?

   Engineers, as practitioners of applied science, wield significant power to determine what problems related to the material world are analyzed and the manner they are actually or potentially resolved. Without critical depth in understanding how to act according to coherent ethical principles, engineers may unknowingly support, and even foster, systems of power and privilege under which all people involved are less effective in providing for reasoned, substantial ethical outcomes.

4. What is your proposed solution/answer?

   Using anthropological and sociological studies of engineering (Bruno Latour and others), I intend to demonstrate that engineers reproduce discourse on ethics as externally imposed upon engineering and based on the actions of individual engineers, leaving engineers with a reduced understanding of effective methods to resolve ethical problems. This discourse also portrays the practice of engineering as relatively value-neutral as it engages in solving practical material problems of the world. Helen Longino’s analysis of science includes many points readily applicable the practice of engineering, such as: constitutive and contextual values; her normative theory of scientific knowledge (including norms such as venues, uptake of criticism, public standards, tempered equity, provisionality); and her conclusion that because there are examples of good science that already contains contextual values, we may include other contextual values in our understanding of scientific processes.

   These analyses provide a useful starting point to shift the discussion of engineering ethics from the individually-focused question, “What are the attributes of an ethical engineer?,â€? toward the social position of “What are the attributes of ethical engineering decisions?,â€? allowing space to acknowledge the social values that affect engineering decision-making and providing a location to critically analyze those values. By shifting this discussion toward an engineering that is explicitly local, contextual and social, this solution may provide room for more critical problem seeking and problem resolution, along with an engineering that will actively seek diverse perspectives (as in Longino’s analysis of science), allowing for a broader decision-making base that may provide more effective, more ethical outcomes.