Exploring Values and Norms of Engineering Through Responsible Innovation and Critiques of Engineering Cultures

Engineers are often taught that ethics entail the adherence to a code of conduct, which can guide their professional behavior. Alternatively, engineers may learn that research ethics are represented by the principles of Responsible Conduct of Research. Both of these approaches ask for engineers to learn, accept and conform to values that are instantiated by external organizations. This is intended to support an individual's decision-making in the face of discrete moral or ethical quandaries. Prior scholarship by Donna Riley, Erin Cech and Amy Slaton offer critiques of engineering culture that point to the myth of objectivity, reductionism, and grit, while underscoring an uncritical acceptance of authority. Cech's work on the "culture of disengagement" and the pillars of depoliticization, socio-technical dualism and meritocracy demonstrated shifts in values among students at four very different universities in Massachusetts. Out of political science and technology assessment the concept of responsible innovation is gaining traction as a means to bring values and norms into the center of innovation activities, exemplified in works by Rene von Schomberg and David Guston. However, the critiques of engineering cultures are often absent from concepts of responsible innovation. For if responsible innovation is a normative shift towards a better future, then understanding what is undesirable about the cultures of engineering and innovation must be equally important. This research explores how engineering students at a university in Virginia express values and norms when asked the question: "What is engineering?" The research design captured long-form essays prior to and after taking an engineering ethics course. Those essays were coded thematically for dimensions of irresponsible innovation, e.g., myth of objectivity, depoliticization and reductionism, as well as for dimensions of responsible innovation including stakeholder engagement, future anticipation of consequences, and adaptiveness. Methodologically, the results suggest that long-form essays, in addition to the surveys used by Cech and the case studies offered by Riley, offer an intriguing method to analyze the emergent values and norms among engineering students. Secondarily, the empirical results suggest subtle shifts in the discourse about what engineering is and, thus recognition of values that might underpin cultures of responsible innovation.