主导意识形态的物化:工程教育中公平与伦理脱钩的后果

Cindy Rottmann, Emily Moore, Andrea Chan
{"title":"主导意识形态的物化:工程教育中公平与伦理脱钩的后果","authors":"Cindy Rottmann, Emily Moore, Andrea Chan","doi":"10.1109/ETHICS57328.2023.10154916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we conduct a critical, secondary analysis of three engineering leadership research projects to explore the consequences of separating ethics from equity in engineering education and practice. Our findings suggest that by pairing ethics with equity, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has raised the profile of professional responsibility among engineering education administrators. Unfortunately, by treating ethics and equity as distinct skillsets rather than integrated epistemological practices, we fail to disrupt powerful ideologies in the profession. In the process, we run the risk of universalizing ethical dilemmas faced by socially advantaged engineers, masking career mobility penalties faced by marginalized members of the profession and leaving engineering leaders with strong social impact records off the hook for inequity. In short, by decoupling equity from professional ethics, we leave societal patterns of privilege intact in workplaces designed for something other than teaching and learning.","PeriodicalId":203527,"journal":{"name":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology (ETHICS)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reifying Dominant Ideologies: Consequences of Decoupling Equity from Ethics in Engineering Education\",\"authors\":\"Cindy Rottmann, Emily Moore, Andrea Chan\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ETHICS57328.2023.10154916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, we conduct a critical, secondary analysis of three engineering leadership research projects to explore the consequences of separating ethics from equity in engineering education and practice. Our findings suggest that by pairing ethics with equity, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has raised the profile of professional responsibility among engineering education administrators. Unfortunately, by treating ethics and equity as distinct skillsets rather than integrated epistemological practices, we fail to disrupt powerful ideologies in the profession. In the process, we run the risk of universalizing ethical dilemmas faced by socially advantaged engineers, masking career mobility penalties faced by marginalized members of the profession and leaving engineering leaders with strong social impact records off the hook for inequity. In short, by decoupling equity from professional ethics, we leave societal patterns of privilege intact in workplaces designed for something other than teaching and learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":203527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology (ETHICS)\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology (ETHICS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS57328.2023.10154916\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science, and Technology (ETHICS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ETHICS57328.2023.10154916","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们对三个工程领导力研究项目进行了批判性的二次分析,以探讨在工程教育和实践中将道德与公平分离的后果。我们的研究结果表明,通过将道德与公平相结合,加拿大工程认证委员会(CEAB)提高了工程教育管理者的专业责任形象。不幸的是,通过将道德和公平视为不同的技能组合,而不是整合的认识论实践,我们未能破坏该行业强大的意识形态。在这个过程中,我们冒着将社会地位优越的工程师所面临的道德困境普遍化的风险,掩盖了该行业边缘化成员所面临的职业流动性惩罚,并让具有强大社会影响记录的工程领导者摆脱不平等的困境。简而言之,通过将公平与职业道德脱钩,我们在工作场所保留了社会特权模式,而这些工作场所的设计目的不是为了教学和学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reifying Dominant Ideologies: Consequences of Decoupling Equity from Ethics in Engineering Education
In this paper, we conduct a critical, secondary analysis of three engineering leadership research projects to explore the consequences of separating ethics from equity in engineering education and practice. Our findings suggest that by pairing ethics with equity, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has raised the profile of professional responsibility among engineering education administrators. Unfortunately, by treating ethics and equity as distinct skillsets rather than integrated epistemological practices, we fail to disrupt powerful ideologies in the profession. In the process, we run the risk of universalizing ethical dilemmas faced by socially advantaged engineers, masking career mobility penalties faced by marginalized members of the profession and leaving engineering leaders with strong social impact records off the hook for inequity. In short, by decoupling equity from professional ethics, we leave societal patterns of privilege intact in workplaces designed for something other than teaching and learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信