Report to College of Engineering Outcomes Assessment Committee        23 August 2002

 

2002 Special Alumni Survey on Professional and Ethical Responsibility

 

Task Group: Robert J. Gustafson, Edward McCaul and Earl Whitlatch

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The goal of this study was to collect data which would give guidance to our programs on ways to reduce the gap in the perceived importance versus preparation of College of Engineering B.S. graduates in the area of  “Professional and Ethical Responsibility”.  A survey was designed to address four main questions:

            Q1)  what ethical issues are occurring most frequently in engineering practice,

            Q2)  what is important in forming sense of professional and ethical behavior,

            Q3)  what are the most significant barriers that limit ethical behavior, and

            Q4)  what should be done differently in our undergraduate programs to improve professional and ethical behavior?

Based on a survey completed by 249 alumni, relative to the four questions, the following observations can be made:

Q1)      A.  “Confidentiality of Information”, “Reviewing the Work of Another Engineer”, and “Engineering Competency” were ranked as the three items with the highest frequency of creating ethical issues in practice.

            B.  Overall, those with PE or EIT status and females tended to rate frequency of occurrence of ethical issues higher.  However, the variation was not uniform across issues.

            C.  No consistent pattern of variation by alumni year was observed, but variation by program was readily apparent.           

Q2)      A.  “Personal Beliefs” are ranked very high while “Undergraduate Education” and “Professional Registration” were both low among items important to forming sense of professional and ethical behavior.

            B.  Overall those with PE or EIT status tended to rate importance of items that influence behavior higher.  However, the variation was not uniform across items.

            C.  Again, no consistent pattern of variation by alumni year was observed, but variation by program was readily apparent.         

Q3)      Written responses regarding barriers that limit behavior fell into nine categories of:


Cost and Time Constraints (n = 37); Supervisor/Employer Attitude, Values and Behavior (n = 37);

Personal beliefs and attributes (n = 22);

Lack of Training or Knowledge (n = 18);

Money and Personal Greed (n = 11);

Career advancement and job security (n = 10); Communications (n= 7);

Laws, Regulations and Design Codes (n = 7);

Unclassified (n= 11)

Q4)      A.  Written responses regarding improving undergraduate programs fell into seven categories:


Specific Suggestions for Approach (n = 46); Specific Suggestions for Content (n= 41); Create a Specific Class on Ethics (n = 33);

No Change Suggested or Not Issue (n = 13);

Distribute Instruction Across the Curric. (n = 10);

Add to Existing Course(s) or Activities (n = 9);

Other Suggestions (n = 9)


            B.  Although not mutually exclusive, the suggestion of having a course directed towards this topic received significant support, as compared to distribution of instruction across the curriculum or adding to existing course(s).

            C.  Specific suggestions strongly supported that instruction with case studies and “real world” examples be used.

            D.  Use of guest speakers from alumni or industry was highlighted.

            E.  Practice in team- and group-work was cited as important to ethical and professional issues.

 

Careful study of this report by faculty involved in instruction related to ethical and professional issues is recommended.

 

Background

 

Based on results of the AY 1998-99 and  AY 1999-2000 College of Engineering Alumni Surveys and feedback from other sources, the Outcomes Assessment Committee established a Task Group to study the nature of the difference between perceived importance versus preparation of College of Engineering B.S. graduates in the area of  “Professional and Ethical Responsibility”.  The goal of the study was to collect data which would give guidance to our programs on ways to reduce this gap.  It is related to ABET EC 2000 Criterion 3. (f) “Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduate have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility”. 

 

The Task Group reviewed literature available on engineering ethics, including codes of ethics, and content of current courses and websites on this topic.  Using this information, an alumni survey was developed (full copy in Appendix 1).   The survey was designed to address four main questions of:

            Q1)  what ethical issues are occurring most frequently in engineering practice,

            Q2)  what is important in forming sense of professional and ethical behavior,

            Q3)  what are the most significant barriers that limit ethical behavior, and

            Q4)  what should be done differently in our undergraduate programs to improve professional and ethical behavior?

 

The first element of the survey asked respondents to indicate in their experience how frequently twenty-eight different items that create ethical issues in engineering practice.   The items list had been developed by review of engineering codes of ethics and NSPE case studies.  (http://www.nspe.org/ethics/).  Respondents could add items as well.  The second question asked respondents to rate how important a list of thirteen items has been in determining their sense of professional and ethical behavior.  Again, respondents could add items.  The third question was an open-ended question asking for the most significant barriers that limit the professional and ethical behavior of engineers.  The fourth and final question was also open-ended, asking what should be done differently in undergraduate programs.  The survey was reviewed by the Outcomes Assessment Committee prior to its use.

 

The survey was included as an extra two pages with the AY 2001-2002 alumni surveys.  Surveys were mailed to engineering alumni of the 2nd (1999), 6th (1995), and 15th (1986) year alumni groups based on addresses maintained by the Ohio State University Alumni Association.   Useable surveys were returned from 249 persons, as shown in Table 1. 

 

Table 1.  Response Rates for Survey

Alumni Year

No. Mailed

Survey Returned

Percent

2nd (1999)

522

85

16.3

6th (1995)

614

99

16.1

15th (1986)

720

65

9.0

Total

1856

249

13.4

 

 

Results

 

Table 2 gives a summary of the demographic data collected for all 249 respondents.  It should be noted that, unfortunately, gender and registration status were not include 15th year alumni survey.  Therefore any comparison by gender or registration status will include 2nd and 6th year alumni only.

 

Table 2.  Demographics of Respondents

Total Number Returned

249

Gender *

Male

147

 

Female

37

 

Unknown

65

Ethnic*

African-American

1

 

Asian-American

8

 

Caucasian

162

 

Native-American

1

 

Hispanic-American

1

 

Foreign

9

 

Other/Unknown

1/1

Employment Status*

Full time

172

 

Part time

3

 

Military

3

 

Caring for family

0

 

Unemployed, seeking employment

3

 

Unemployed, not seeking employment

0

 

Other

4

Currently employed as an Engineer/Surveyor *

157

Year since Graduation

2nd (1999)

99

 

6th (1995)

85

 

15th (1986)

65

Program

Aero

12

 

Aviation

0

 

Ceramic

2

 

Chemical

27

 

Civil

34

 

Civil/environmental

5

 

CSE

31

 

ECE-elec

37

 

ECE-comp

5

 

Physics

3

 

FABE

6

 

Geomatics

0

 

ISE

13

 

MSE

4

 

ME

57

 

Metallurgical

6

 

Surveying

0

 

Welding

7

Professional Engineer*

PE

19

EIT

59

*This demographic not collected for 15th Year Alumni

 

Question 1 –  What ethical issues are occurring most frequently in engineering practice?

 

Table 3 below summarizes the data for how often respondents felt various topics create ethical issues in engineering practice across all respondents.  The table orders the situations by mean of “How Often” from most frequent to least frequent using the one to five scale indicated in the Table. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Ranked Frequency of Creating Ethical Issues in Engineering Practice

 

 

N

Mean

Not Often (1)

Some-what Often (2)

Often (3)

Very Often (4)

Extremely Often

 (5)

Confidentiality of Information

241

2.59

65

64

47

36

29

Reviewing the Work of Another Engineer

238

2.34

75

66

53

30

14

Engineering Competency

243

2.22

86

67

51

28

11

Use of Employer's Facilities

239

2.16

95

61

46

23

14

Competitive Bidding

237

2.13

108

51

37

21

20

Criticism of Another Engineer

240

2.12

82

88

38

24

8

Conflict with Client

241

2.11

96

66

43

28

8

Conflict with Employer

245

2.11

82

92

43

19

9

Obligation to Public Health/Safety

242

2.10

108

53

41

29

11

Conflict of Interest

240

2.05

96

72

44

19

9

Expense or Time Account Padding

238

2.01

113

58

34

18

15

Obligation to Environment/Sustainable Development

242

1.96

125

46

36

25

10

Assignment of Liability

234

1.91

119

48

43

17

7

Receiving Gifts

240

1.90

125

49

39

18

9

Patents and Copyrights

237

1.90

131

44

32

14

16

Resume or Qualifications Padding

238

1.89

123

57

32

14

12

Giving Gifts

240

1.77

142

43

31

16

8

Personal Behavior Outside of Work

241

1.74

135

60

27

11

8

Discrimination based on Race, Age or Gender

238

1.74

146

42

31

4

15

Duty to Report Violations (whistleblowing)

243

1.66

142

60

26

11

4

Support for Professional Development/Registration

236

1.59

153

50

17

8

8

Political Donations/Influence

239

1.50

177

27

20

8

7

Public Comment by an Engineer

230

1.43

164

42

18

3

3

Moonlighting

237

1.39

183

28

17

6

3

Practice in a Foreign Country

232

1.35

188

19

16

5

4

Professional Advertising