Teaching Philosophy to Engineering Students - IEEE Xplore

Session M4A

Teaching Philosophy to Engineering Students John Heywood Trinity College Dublin, [email protected]

William Grimson Dublin Institute of Technology, [email protected]

Russell Korte University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, [email protected] Abstract – The intention of this paper is to accompany the two special sessions on teaching philosophy in engineering courses as a vehicle for reflection on the subject matter of these sessions. In recent years there have been substantial international discussions on the subject of engineering and philosophy. The second of two international workshops on philosophy and engineering was held at the Royal Academy of Engineering in November 2008. Many of the outcomes of these deliberations have a bearing on the engineering curriculum and they coincide with a resurgent debate about content and method in the liberal education of engineers. At FIE 2007 and 2008 special sessions and a number of papers focused on engineering education and the more specific philosophy of education. These developments will be reviewed. One of the emerging issues that relate philosophy and the psychology of development has been the treatment of ethics within the context of moral development. Another emerging issue, the principle subject of this paper, is the idea that in addition to ethics philosophy should be taught to engineering students. But the proponents of this view do not, it seems, speak with one voice and this for the want of a more substantial and focused debate on the issue. The different views may be posed as questions thus: Should, philosophy be taught as a separate course or integrated into existing programmes, as for example design where there is already a relevant and high quality literature? If philosophy is taught as a separate course is its purpose to provide an understanding of the traditional disciplines of philosophy and the bearing they have on engineering, or is it to help students acquire a philosophical disposition (habit of mind)? If it is the latter how does that differ from the commonly held goal of higher education- the development of skill in reflective (critical) thinking? Or, is it about training students in the use of philosophical techniques in engineering? And in respect of the last question is that liberal education? Apart from some European studies of the attitudes of engineering teachers to the introduction of philosophy into engineering programmes and American work on moral development there has been little relevant

research and development in these areas. The purpose of this paper is to review these recent discussions in the light of the questions posed above with the intention of outlining areas for research. Keywords: engineering education, philosophical reasoning.

ethics, philosophy,

INTRODUCTION The intention of this paper is to accompany the special sessions at this conference on “Teaching Philosophy in Engineering Courses” (Heywood, Grimson and Korte) and “Developing Engineering Students Philosophical Inquiry Skills” (Korte and Smith). Its purpose is to provide the reader (participant) with a vehicle for reflection on the subject matter of these special sessions. During the last five years there have been on-going discussions about philosophy and engineering on the one hand [1] and the application of the philosophy of education to the engineering curriculum on the other hand [2]. Several of those engaged in those discussions have advocated the teaching of philosophy in the curriculum [3], and in one case, the Danish Government has made the teaching of the philosophy of technology as a mandatory component in the liberal education of engineers [4]. The concerns of this paper are with the desirability of teaching philosophy to engineering students. Various reasons have been given for such study. Among them the instrumental view that a study of the philosophy of engineering might (a) contribute to the quality of professional practice, and (b) assist the profession to reformulate its identity. In contrast there is the view that it contributes to the development of the whole person, i.e., the view of those who believe that engineering provides an inadequate compass of liberal education. Whether these views are reconcilable would seem to be a function of how the students are taught and what they are asked to do. Although there are problems with definitions the case put by those for liberal education is often couched in terms that without it engineers by and large will find it difficult to inhabit the higher circles of political and social decision making. Some commentators argued that professional engineering has lost its identity [5] so it is around the

978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M4A-1

Session M4A concept of identity that the first half of this discussion is centered. For convenience this discussion is centered on the three crises of engineering identity identified by Dias [6]. He argues that there are crises of engineering influence, engineering role and engineering knowledge. ENGINEERING INFLUENCE Interest by organizations such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering and the Royal Academy of Engineering arises at a time when the public policy of these academies is concerned with the poor image that engineering has in many countries. It is sometimes expressed by distinguished engineers as the inability of the profession to inhabit the higher circles of policy making not only in government but in corporations. At other times it is expressed in concern about the failure to recruit students to engineering programs at university and especially women. In these contexts it has to cope with critics who suggest that engineering has lost its identity . They raise questions as to the very nature of engineering. Or, to put it bluntly “what is engineering” as opposed to “science,” on the one hand or “technology” on the other hand hence, the importance of the discussion on whether or not there is a philosophy of engineering that is distinct from the philosophies of science and technology. It would seem to be a sine qua non that engineering students should discuss such issues. Dias considered that-“while there was a time when engineering was synonymous with progress and upliftment of man, the technological society and environmental crisis have raised the question as to whether engineers do more harm than good the study of such rights and wrongs is that branch of philosophy called ethics." Davis from his study of ethics in engineering concludes that “in practice the ethics of engineers is as important to the success of engineering as good design or testing is.” [7]. That suitably translated could apply to any human endeavor. The implications for the teaching of ethics are profound because it makes it much more than a discussion of codes of conduct. It would seem that a unitary code goes some way to providing an underlying bond to the fragmentation that is perceived. New pathways for the ethics curriculum are being developed that bring the work of philosophers firmly into play. For example, Bowen argues for an “aspirational engineering ethic.” [8]. He suggests that engineering ethics can have practical outcomes in education, within professional associations and in industry and work practices. His approach appeals to the philosophies of Buber [9] in particular and McIntyre [10] as he sets out to redress the “imbalance between the prioritisation technical ingenuity over helping people.” He argues that engineers have a duty of care in the same way that teachers and doctors have. The special capabilities that for promoting wellbeing which engineers have also bring special responsibilities. The implications for teaching are profound for engineering

educators as members of the profession have these same responsibilities and if they adopt them they will have to ask how the curriculum might better serve wellbeing. If “engineering courses […] give greater emphasis to the goal of benefits in terms of the quality of life of individuals” there is it seems, from studies such as those by Seymour and Hewitt [11], a chance that engineering will assert a more general appeal among the public and students in particular. However, a reality check shows that there is a long way to go when “service courses” focussed on work in communities and the developing world, the “low tech” required by developing nations [12], and more generally liberal education are held in such low esteem in engineering education communities. THE CRISIS OF ENGINEERING ROLE

Dias who is a civil engineer expresses it in the question –“Is an engineer a scientist or a manager?” Other areas of engineering may see it differently. Schiaffonati for instance describes AI as “a science concerning the general intelligence and engineering devoted to the design of concrete systems” [13] which hardly implies management in the sense of civil engineering. Dias suggests that on occasions engineers have difficulty in explaining how their role differs from that of technicians and craftsmen. “Engineers need an understanding about who they are, in other words about their being. The study of being is that branch of philosophy called ontology.” It is difficult to believe that such understanding could be achieved without reflection and the development of this skill is generally considered to be an important goal of higher education. THE CRISIS OF ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE Dias illustrates this crisis with the question “Is engineering theoretical or practical?” Some authorities take engineering to be both an art and a science. But, is it? Questions like these are part of the more general epistemological question“what is engineering knowledge?” Engineering educators seem to be overwhelmingly on the side of the theoretical. The theoretical subjects, argues Dias are often “mathematics in disguise. Engineering Practice on the other hand is largely practical in nature, and great reliance is placed on established procedures (or ‘rules of thumb’), specified guidelines (or codes of practice), and that indefinable element called ‘engineering judgement.’ Much importance is attached to the ability to make qualitative judgements, a skill that engineering students are said to lack. Much of the debate about engineering knowledge has focussed on differences between engineering and science. Less attention has been paid to the use of tacit knowledge and how that tacit knowledge is obtained. The idea that engineering is simply the application of science as some authorities hold is simply without foundation. If it were engineering would be tightly constrained and many innovations never happen. Often engineering is the cause of


Session M4A searches for principles. It was many years after they were built that a rational understanding of how the pantheon, Brunelleschi’s dome of the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore, Marconi’s transmission of radio waves across the Atlantic, and many electronic devises actually ‘worked’ before the theories that were developed explained ‘Why’. Engineers often make things without the scientific principles being understood. It is as Blockley points out both an art and a science [14] and “much of what practitioners actually do is as a result of experience.” Part of that experience is education. How does that particular experience influence practice? At the heart of the philosophical endeavor is understanding how we think and how others in different fields think. Grimson has shown how the traditional divisions of philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic and aesthetics) are relevant to the teaching of engineering design [15]. But other approaches are possible, as for example the study of “isms,” [16] The study of individual philosophers, for example Wittengenstein [17] can also throw light on many of these issues e.g “what is engineering knowledge?”- “How can engineering knowledge be built?” And, “what is the worth and value of engineering knowledge?” Price has shown how project based and research based approaches to design projects have philosophical bases in Locke and Descartes respectively [18]. Parodi [19] has shown how the philosophies of Descartes and Bacon were apparent in “massive hydraulic engineering projects of the nineteen fifties. The “channels of many rivers and brooks were corrected with lots of concrete”. Now “near natural engineering” that is ecologically based has its foundations in Rousseau and romanticism. A very substantial case can be made for the inclusion of the study of the philosophy of engineering alongside ethics in engineering courses and a contribution to liberal education my be obtained through the cultivation of reflective practice. There are several ways in which the study may be approached. Additionally at an instrumental level the teaching of the techniques of philosophy is also relevant. TEACHING THE TECHNIQUES OF PHILOSOPHY The case for learning about the techniques of philosophy has been put by Goldberg [20], and Korte and Smith [21]. Goldberg suggests that senior design students have difficulty in asking questions although they are not alone in having this difficulty which is widespread in the student population. They also have difficulty in labeling technology and design challenges. By this he means that while students know engineering science they know little about the engineering. In respect of patterns of failure or design challenges students have difficulty in giving consistent names to the patterns. Simons in an unpublished tutorial at the 2009 Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering demonstrated how metaphysics could help with classification and pattern learning. Related to this problem is, the difficulty students have in modeling

design challenges qualitatively. Again this is a problem not confined to students in design courses as Cowan has argued [22]. Goldberg suggests that students have difficulty in decomposing a big design problem into smaller subproblems. He suggests this may be resolved by helping them to think in Cartesian terms. Interestingly Simons in another paper argued that engineering could contribute to philosophy because only recently “have philosophers though it worth analyzing the concept of the part-whole relationship.” [23] The kind of analysis Simons presents might provide engineering students with another way of thinking about the sub problems of a design and how they might help a philosophy resolve a problem. Whereas, argues Goldberg an alternative to mathematical modeling might just depend “ on simple experimentation or library work.” One task of philosophical reasoning is the systematic ordering of thoughts, beliefs, ideas and habits into a coherent view of reality. For engineering educators, the process of philosophical inquiry helps to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesize the vast array of ideas into a more coherent system to guide practice. Rather than the articulation of a single philosophy of engineering, Korte and Smith propose the value of the process of articulating a philosophical stance for students and faculty alike. The value of philosophical inquiry stems from addressing questions of how, whether, and why [24]. The questions have a direct bearing on engineering education concerns in that one determines, what is the case (informative), how to do things and achieve aims (practical), and what to aim at (evaluative/directive). Philosophical inquiry aims to resolve questions as rationally as possible given the chaotic nature of reality-and the debate about the nature of reality. The task of philosophical inquiry is to develop a consistent and coherent understanding of reality by systematically estimating this reality from the available data or information. Data for philosophical inquiry come from multiple sources, such as cultural beliefs, and values, knowledge of social systems, and the technical knowledge of science, experts and authorities. The outcome is the best available answer to a problem rather than the best possible answer [25]. Furthermore, philosophical information is historically grounded and socially situated. These two attributes of philosophical information and data align with the focus of preparing engineering students to practice in the 21st century. For example Searle talks about the misuse of the term objectivity by describing the concepts used to represent reality as subjective, socially constructed knowledge [26]. Thus, even though the ontology of the world is objective because it exists independently of our mental states, the ontology of our knowledge, tools, language, theories , and concepts is subjective with a traceable formation in history. In a related manner, Elster categorized the causal, functional, and intentional characteristics of the physical, biological, and social sciences. He proposed that it is inappropriate to strictly characterize the social sciences as casual or even functional. “Intentionality” is an inherent characteristic of


Session M4A social phenomena that cannot be rigorously reduced to cause and effect models. Both Searle and Elster provide support for a pragmatic view of an “applied science” such as engineering that requires interaction with the beneficiaries of work. It is in the interaction of the social and the technical that engineering is grounded and, this according to Searle and Elster, require the pragmatic, the contingent, and subjective interpretation of problems. It is evident that in many areas philosophy overlaps with the social sciences. This is no more apparent than in the relationship between ethics and moral development. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE “OUGHT” Harding’s approach to ethics is firmly based in cognitive psychology and greatly influenced by Kohlberg’s theory of moral development [28]. He, an engineer, was led to this through earlier work on cheating among engineering students. He argues that recent research “suggests that the average person does not consider ethical dilemmas in the abstract. Instead ethical decision making appears to be a complex dance between an individual’s rational calculus of the ethical dilemmas and their emotional response to the context of the dilemmas[…] in the trenches of daily life psychology has a better grasp on the workings of ethical decision making while philosophy helps to provide direction.” [29] In this respect it would seem important to note the significance of ideas on the development of cultural attitudes. In consequence Harding presents a holistic teaching model that originates with Narvaez [30] that has five steps. These are to establish a caring relationship with each student, establish a climate of achievement and character, teach ethical skills across the curriculum, using a novice-toexpert pedagogy foster self- authorship and self-regulation, and build communities and co-ordinate development systems. All of these steps are to be undertaken within a framework of moral development. The implications of this for curriculum design would seem to be similar to those for cognitive development of the kind described by Perry[31] and Kitchener and King [32] that some engineering schools have implemented. Harding writes “And yet as I conclude this paper on the psychology of human morality, it occurs to me that what is really needed in engineering education is first a reexamination of our moral identity as a discipline. No amount of pedagogical innovation is going to change the ethical capacity of our students if we do not first address the question of human growth. Who am I and who am I going to be.” It would seem that service courses of the kind designed to help communities in the third world and discussions of the concept of “Peace engineering” force students to confront such questions [33]. The challenge was put to this writer in another way by a Franciscan monk thus “what is more important, what have I achieved? Or what have I become/” Inherently as we search for an identity the key question is what have I become? And, the question that a potential

student of engineering asks is “what will it help me become?” One of the issues here is how might the teaching of philosophy in engineering courses help students answer that question. A PHILOSOPHICAL HABIT OF MIND Support for Harding’s view is to be found in Newman’s discourse on The Idea of a University. [34] He writes of philosophy in a somewhat different way to that traditionally associated with the term. He links philosophy, philosophical spirit and enlargement or expansion of the mind together. “And therefore, a philosophical cast of thought, or a comprehensive mind, or wisdom in conduct of policy, implies a connected view of the old with the new; an insight into the bearing and influence of each part upon every other without which there is no whole, and could be no centre. It is the knowledge, not only of things, but of their mutual relations. It is organized, and therefore living knowledge.” It is evident that this could be applied to an artefact but that is not the context. The context is a world-view that is part of the person, the understanding that a person has of himself or herself in relation to the things of this world. It is the disposition that one has to handle different situations that is influenced by an understanding of who I am and what I want to be. Harding’s questions are likely to be answered better by those whose engineering education is situated in a much broader knowledge context than those whose learning is confined to technological matters alone. An important dimension of such an education would be the inevitability of having to understand different ways of thinking. Others might argue that such a disposition would be a spin off from teaching philosophy within a design program, and some see philosophy of technology as liberal education. ISSUES FOR RESEARCH. When Davis concluded his study of the engineering professions he posed a number of questions that apply as much to engineering educators as they do to the social scientists to whom they were directed. The contributions discussed as well as many others in the texts in which they were embedded show that they still remain to be answered. Little or no empirical work has been done to establish answers to the question “What is engineering?” Without answers to that question it is not possible to determine who engineers are. While there have been several important commentaries on what engineers do there has been little recent interest in establishing empirically what it is that engineers actually do. Answers to this question have a bearing on professionalism and what it means to be a professional, what restricts professionalism and what extends it, and how this is wrapped up in particular beliefs about the curriculum. Are engineering educators a different kind of professional to practising engineers?

Related to this are the fundamental beliefs that engineering educators have about themselves and the way they impinge 978-1-4244-4714-5/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference M4A-4

Session M4A on their everyday work. It has been pointed out that while much is known about students little is known about their teachers. Even so, we know very little bout the beliefs that students have about themselves and engineering. Is one of the reasons that liberal studies programs are not successful the belief of students that education is an artifact they have to endure to become an engineer with the consequence that it has to be seen to be engineering? Is it the case they feel quite capable of forming their own belief systems without resort to the artifact of formal academic study? These are important areas in which little is known yet capable of empirical research. REFERENCES [1] (a) Christensen, S. H. et al (eds) (2007) Philosophy in Engineering. Academica, Aarhus, Denmark. (b) WPE-2007. 2008 Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering. Abstracts. University of Delft. (c) WPE- 2008. 2008 Workshop on Philosophy and Engineering. Abstracts. Royal Academy of Engineering, London. [2] (a) Special session (2007) Can Philosophy of engineering education improve the practice of engineering education? Proceedings Frontiers in Education Conference (IEEE) T1f- 1 to 2 (b) Special Session (2008) Continuing the FIE 2007 Conversation on: Can philosophy of engineering education improve the practice of engineering education? Proceedings Frontiers in Education Conference (IEEE) T1A-1 to 2 [3] Heywood, J (2007). “Think…about how others think.” Liberal education and engineering. Proceedings Frontiers in Education Conference (IEEE), T3C- 20 – 24. [4] Christensen, S. H and Erno-Kjolhede, E (2009) Implementing liberal education in engineering studies in Denmark. In Christensen, S. H. (ed) Engineering in Context. Academica, Aarhus, Denmark. [5] Williams, R (2003). Education for the profession formerly known as engineering. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Issue January 24th. [6] Dias, P (2008) The engineers identity crisis. Homo Faber versus Homo Sapiens. See ref 1 (c) pp23/24 [7] Davis, M (1998). Thinking like an Engineer. Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. Oxford University Press. [8] Bowen, W. R. (2009). An Aspirational Engineering Ethic. Springer.

[11] Seymour, E and N. M. Hewitt (1997). Talking about Leaving. Why Undergraduates leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO [12] Leydens, J. A and J. C. Lucena (2009) Knowledge valuation in humanitarian engineering education in ref 1 (a). [13] Schioffonati, V (2008) From philosophy of science to philosophy of engineering. See ref 1 (c) pp46/47 [14] Blockley, D (2008) integrating hard and soft systems in ref 1 (c) pp 10/11. [15] Grimson, W.(2007) The philosophical nature of engineering- A characterisation of engineering using the language and activities of philosophy. Paper AC 2007- 1611. Proceedings Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education. [16] de Figueredo (2008) reminds us that science is the philosophy of positivism as is the social dimension of engineering when engineers become social experts. In design systems thinking is valued more than analytical thinking, and in order to get things done we have to be both constructivist as well as pragmatic and he argues that engineering is transdisciplinary between these four dimensions. Thus he adds methodological and axiological questions to the epistemological question of “what is engineering knowledge?” They are “How can engineering knowledge be built?” And, What is the worth and value of engineering knowledge” in ref 1 (c) pp 94/95. [17] Keynote lecture by N. McCarthy (2007) in ref 1 (b). [18] Price, M. J (2008) Descartes and locke at the drawing board: philosophies of engineering design in ref 1 (c) pp 27/28. [19] Parodi, O (2008). Hydraulics engineering reflected in the humanities. See ref 1 (c) pp 90/92. [20] Goldberg, D. E. (2008) What engineers don’t learn and why they don’t learn it: and how philosophy might be able to help. See ref 1 (c) pp 85/86. [21] See ref 2 (b) [22] Cowan, J (2006). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher. Reflection in Action 2nd edition. SRHE/Open University Press, Maidenhead.

Buber, M (2004). I and Thou. Continuum, London.

[23] Simons. P (2008) Varieties of parthood. Ontology learns from engineering. See ref 1 (c) pp 71/72

[10] MacIntyre, A (1985). After Virtue. 2nd edition. Duckworth, London.

[24] Rescher, N (2001) Philosophical reasoning: A Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing. Blackwell, MA.

[9]


Session M4A [25] ibid [26] Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York. [27] Elster, J (1983). Explaining Technical Change. A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press. [28] Kohlberg, L (1984) Essays in moral development Vol 2. Psychology of Moral Development. Harper and Row, New York. [29] Harding, T. S. (2008). The psychology of the ‘ought’. Proceedings Frontiers in Education Conference (IEEE), S4H- 19 to 24. [30] Narvaez, D (2008) Human flourishing and moral development. Cognitive and neurobiological perspectives in virtue development in L. P. Nucci and D. Narvaez (eds) Handbook of Moral and Character Education. Routledge, New York. [31] Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and Ethical Development in College Years. A Scheme. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
