Abstract
Discussions around the unethical use of emerging technology have become increasingly common in our society. Despite previous research acknowledging the importance of including societal-level discussions in engineering and technology undergraduate curricula, there is a lack of research around college students’ understanding of and engagement with the ethics of new and emerging technology. In this qualitative study, we present the results from 17 interviews with students from a range of engineering and technology fields, describing how they reason as both designers and consumers of new technology. Our goal is to characterize students’ patterns of reasoning about the ethics of new technology, and, in this paper, we describe how this reasoning is argued from multiple stakeholder perspectives (corporations, government, professionals, users and society). Our findings indicate privacy, security and balance of power as the most relevant ethical issues to respondents, and that participants consider several stakeholders in their reasoning, often shifting among multiple perspectives. Furthermore, interviewed students often concluded their reasoning by either resigning themselves to the pervasiveness of technology or by pushing the liability concerns to one stakeholder while diminishing the responsibility of others. In each case, respondents frequently avoided entering societal-level discussions related to ethical issues of emerging technology. Our results offer relevant insights that can facilitate further work related to the research and teaching of ethics to college students, as well as suggest areas for future research particularly building upon participants’ feelings of resignation in relation to unethical use of new technology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allyn, B. (2020). Your boss is watching you: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance. NPR. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/854014403/your-boss-is-watching-you-work-from-home-boom-leads-to-more-surveillance
Barry, B. E., & Herkert, J. R. (2014). Engineering ethics. Chapter 33 in Cambridge handbook of engineering education research. Eds. A. Johri and BM Olds.
Basart, J. M., & Serra, M. (2013). Engineering ethics beyond engineers’ ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 179–187.
Becker, M. (2019). Privacy in the digital age: Comparing and contrasting individual versus social approaches towards privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(4), 307–317.
Brey, P. A. (2012). Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(4), 305–317.
Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology, and Human Values, 39(1), 42–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913504305
Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 327–338.
Conlon, E., & Zandvoort, H. (2011). Broadening ethics teaching in engineering: Beyond the individualistic approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 217–232.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develo** grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Cummings, M. L. (2006). Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 701–715.
Das, T. K. (2005). How strong are the ethical preferences of senior business executives? Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 69–80.
de Vries, M. J. (2005). The nature of technological knowledge: philosophical reflections and educational consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-8276-2
Draper, N. A., & Turow, J. (2019). The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New Media and Society, 21(8), 1824–1839.
Emison, G. A. (2004). American pragmatism as a guide for professional ethical conduct for engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 225–233.
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416.
Gandy, O. (1989). The surveillance society: Information technology and bureaucratic social control. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 61–76.
Gray, C. M., & Boling, E. (2016). Inscribing ethics and values in designs for learning: A problematic. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), 969–1001.
Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373–385.
Hern, A. (2019). Apple contractors ‘regularly hear confidential details’ on Siri recordings. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings
Hess, J. L., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2017). The development of empathic perspective-taking in an engineering ethics course. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 534–563.
Heylighen, A., & Dong, A. (2019). To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design. Design Studies, 65, 107–124.
Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 680–702.
Keirl, S. (2006). Ethical technological literacy as democratic curriculum keystone. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy towards an epistemological framework (pp. 81–102). US: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403983053_7
Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Hortop, A., Strehl, E. A., & Sienko, K. H. (2020). An in-depth investigation of student information gathering meetings with stakeholders and domain experts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09595-w
Mason, R. O. (1986). Four ethical issues of the information age. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 10(1), 5–12.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nair, I., & Bulleit, W. M. (2020). Pragmatism and care in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(1), 65–87.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Pavlova, M. (2005). Social change: How should technology education respond? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 199–215.
Polmear, M., Bielefeldt, A. R., Knight, D., Swan, C., & Canney, N. (2020). Exploratory investigation of personal influences on educators’ engagement in engineering ethics and societal impacts instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3143–3165.
Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 29–45.
Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 127–142.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5–18.
Schmidt, J. A. (2014). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 985–1010.
Schooner, P., Klasander, C., & Hallström, J. (2018). Swedish technology teachers’ views on assessing student understandings of technological systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 169–188.
Schuppe, J. (2018). Facial recognition gives police a powerful new tracking tool. It’s also raising alarms. NBCNews. Retrieved from: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/facial-recognition-gives-police-powerful-new-tracking-tool-it-s-n894936
Sheng, E. (2020). Employee privacy in the US is at stake as corporate surveillance technology monitors workers’ every move. @Work, CNBC. Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/employee-privacy-is-at-stake-as-surveillance-tech-monitors-workers.html
Smith, R. C., & Iversen, O. S. (2018). Participatory design for sustainable social change. Design Studies, 59, 9–36.
Smith, O. (2018). A huge global study on driverless car ethics found the elderly are expendable. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliversmith/2018/03/21/the-results-of-the-biggest-global-study-on-driverless-car-ethics-are-in/#13728a7d4a9f
Son, W. C. (2008). Philosophy of technology and macro-ethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 405.
Walther, J., Miller, S. E., & Sochacka, N. W. (2017). A model of empathy in engineering as a core skill, practice orientation, and professional way of being. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 123–148.
Walton, D. N. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 399–419.
Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199–226.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were coordinated and performed by Dr. Colin M. Gray. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dr. Luciana Debs and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of Purdue University and was deemed exempt.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained prior to the interview.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Debs, L., Gray, C.M. & Asunda, P.A. Students’ perceptions and reasoning patterns about the ethics of emerging technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 143–163 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09719-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09719-w