Conference Agenda

Responsibility is a core concept for engineering ethics (Herkert, 2002), prominently featured in professional codes of practice, accreditation requirements for graduate engineers, and the mission statements of engineering programmes and technological universities. Yet, it is often used ambiguously and subject to subject to various interpretations. Responsibility can refer to numerous obligations, at varying degrees and toward different parties, making it challenging to clearly define the concept (Johnson, 1992, p.21). Scholars have distinguished between causal, moral, legal, professional, social, and technical responsibility (Alpern, Oldenquist, & Florman, 1983, Mingle & Reagan, 1983; Johnson, 1992; Smith, Gardoni, & Murphy, 2014). Smith, Gardoni, and Murphy (2014, p.520) point out that the use of the concept typically emphasizes the responsibilities expected of professionals.

Compounding the challenge of understanding what is meant by ‘responsibility’, the concepts of social and professional responsibility are often used interchangeably in engineering (Bielefeldt, 2018; Nichols, 2007). According to Martin et al (2023), responsibility is mentioned as a homogenous concept considering the heterogenous ways in which responsibility can manifest in engineering practice. It is thus unclear what is understood by responsibility and which responsibilities are targeted when this concept is mentioned in the public discourse or in the mission statements of engineering higher education institutions.

As technology advances and societal expectations shift, there is an increasing need for engineers to consider the ethical dimensions integral to engineering practice. Given the pivotal role that responsibility plays in engineering practice, it is important to clarify and disambiguate the concept and have a comprehensive, structured approach that encompasses its dimensions.

Using a narrative literature review, the study synthesizes the engineering ethics literature to develop a conceptual framework that articulates a broad range of engineering responsibilities.This framework identifies 16 engineering responsibilities emerging from the engineering ethics literature and categorises them at four analytical levels (Micro/Macro and Subject/Object) and connects them with specific pedagogical approaches corresponding to Micro-Subject, Macro-Subject, Micro-Object or Macro-Object dimensions. Micro-Subject responsibilities relate to the values, characteristics, and decision-making of individual engineers. Macro-Subject responsibilities relate to the values, mission and decision-making of the engineering profession or collectives. Micro-Object responsibilities relate to the values, characteristics, and culture of organisations where an engineer practices. Macro-Object responsibilities relate to the social, economic and political structures and context driving engineering practice.

This conceptual framework provides policymakers, engineering educators, and educational programmes with clear formulations for setting learning objectives and graduate attributes that support the embedding of responsibility across the curriculum and across accreditation requirements. In engineering education research, it can provide a terminology for developing novel assessment tools to measure students' and professionals' understanding of their responsibilities.

References

Alpern, K. D., Oldenquist, A., & Florman, S. C. (1983). Moral Responsibility for Engineers Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 2(2), 39–56.

Herkert, J. R. (2001). Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics, and the role of professional societies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 403-414.

Johnson, D. G. (1992). Do Engineers have Social Responsibilities? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 9(1), 21–34.

Martin, D. A., Bombaerts, G., Horst, M., Papageorgiou, K. & Viscusi, G. (2023). Pedagogical Orientations and Evolving Responsibilities of Technological Universities: A Literature Review of the History of Engineering Education. Science and Engineering Ethics 29, 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00460-2

Mingle, J. O., & Reagan, C. E. (1983). Legal responsibility versus moral responsibility: the engineer’s dilemma. Jurimetrics, 23(2), 113–155.

Nichols, S., & Knobe, J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous, 41(4), 663-685.

Smith, J., Gardoni, P. & Murphy, C. (2014). The Responsibilities of Engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics 20, 519–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9463-2

In contemporary philosophy of technology, technological artifacts are pivotal in shaping both our understanding of the world and existential experiences. This paper explores how this perspective applies to educational materials, with a specific focus on the use of board games as tools for philosophical pedagogy. Are board games merely supplementary teaching aids, or do they actively construct and influence the content and process of learning as technological artifacts? Should their role be regarded as a constructive intervention aligned with educational objectives or as a disruptive force introducing unintended shifts in subject knowledge? Furthermore, the mediating role of technological artifacts in shaping ethical and behavioral outcomes raises pressing questions: Can educational board games be purposefully designed to promote "good" behaviors among learners? Do such designs pose ethical challenges, particularly in the choice of game mechanics and the objectives of their deployment?

Focusing on philosophy education, this study investigates the intersection of teaching methodologies, materials, and objectives to examine the broader implications for philosophical inquiry and education. In ancient Greece, Socrates epitomized the unity of philosophical method, meaning, and pedagogy through his dialectical approach, notably his metaphor of midwifery. This method encouraged critical thinking and remains a cornerstone of philosophical pedagogy. However, under modern educational paradigms emphasizing efficiency and measurable outcomes, philosophy education faces challenges in retaining its foundational spirit. How can philosophical education preserve its essence while adapting to these contemporary demands?

Building on John Dewey’s Democracy and Education, which advocates for the alignment of educational objectives, materials, and student experiences, this paper proposes a framework for designing philosophical board games. Influenced by the educational philosophies of Dewey, Paulo Freire, Joseph Jacotot, Matthew Lipman’s Philosophy for Children, and Michel Foucault, the framework integrates philosophical principles with pedagogical strategies. The study analyzes existing philosophical board games, categorizes their objectives and philosophical significance, and outlines a preliminary model for board game design that bridges the gap between philosophical inquiry and contemporary educational practices.

Finally, the paper reflects on the transformative potential of adopting board games in philosophy education and the ethical considerations they entail. By revisiting the methods and materials of philosophical pedagogy, this study aims to redefine the relevance of philosophy in contemporary education and propose actionable strategies for enhancing philosophical engagement across diverse educational contexts.

Human beings have collectively constructed themselves through their own efforts (Monterroza-Rios, 2019). This has been made possible by the support of artificial ecological niches, formed by networks of practices in which people, relying on artefacts and their meanings, develop a cultural life. Thus, human existence is a hybrid state between the natural and the artificial, mediated by the artificial niches of artefacts that stabilise and give meaning to human practices (Broncano, 2009). The surrounding network of artefacts not only sustains these social practices (Latour, 2005) but also serves as a feedback mechanism that enriches the horizon of possibilities (Broncano, 2008) and fuels creativity and imagination (Stokes, 2014).

Technical action has been ancestral and collective in all human cultures (Ortega y Gasset, 1982). Today’s technological practices are contemporary manifestations of that way of transforming the world (Heidegger, 1977), mediated by design processes (Papanek, 1971) and reliable knowledge (Bunge, 1963). In this way, technological designs are the outcome of practices that bring together a range of pragmatic conditions to transform the real conditions of possibility for a human group. Accordingly, a new design may solve a problem in the light of a specific historical moment, yet it may also give rise to unforeseen problems. In any case, the group’s potential for action is changed forever, as are its expectations and the new challenges that emerge.

In this sense, contemporary engineering design processes may be regarded as ‘possibility operators’, insofar as they ‘design’ worlds and possible futures. While any human cultural practice could introduce an element that opens up new possibilities, engineering design has the methodologies, processes, supports, and tools to do so effectively and in a planned manner. These practices have the virtue of making their aims explicit, identifying the goal of establishing concrete objects that open up these possibilities and reconstitute material cultures.

This underscores the great social responsibility of design, since it acts as a projector of futures. Consequently, it provides an additional argument to support the validity and relevance of proposals such as design for sustainability or socially responsible design (Manzini & Rizzo, 2011; Papanek, 1971).

References

Broncano, F. (2008). In media res: cultura material y artefactos. ArteFactos, 18-32.

Bunge, M. (1963). Tecnología, ciencia y filosofía. Anales de la Universidad de Chile(126), 329-347.

Darwin, C. (2013). The Descent of Man. London: Wordsworth Editions.

Heidegger, M. (1977). “The Question Concerning Technology.” En The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (trad. William Lovitt, pp. 3–35). New York: Harper & Row.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Manzini, E., & Rizzo, F. (2011). Small projects/large changes: Participatory design as an open participated process. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 199-215. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.630472

Monterroza-Rios, A. D. (2019). El papel retroalimentador de los artefactos en el desarrollo de las técnicas humanas. Trilogía Ciencia Tecnología Sociedad, 49-65. doi:10.22430/21457778.1286

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1982). Meditación de la Técnica y otros ensayos sobre la ciencia y la filosofía (1982 ed.). Madrid: Alianza.

Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. New York: Pantheon Books.

Stokes, D. (2014). The Role of Imagination in Creativity. En E. S. Paul, & S. B. Kaufman, The Philosophy of Creativity. New Essays (págs. 157-184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.