Engineering in a Crisis: Observing Students' Perceptions of Macroethical Responsibilities during Pandemics and Natural Disasters

When the ethical responsibilities of engineers are discussed in classrooms, the focus is usually on microethics, which concentrates on individual decision-making, rather than macroethics, that addresses broad societal concerns. Pandemics (e.g., COVID-19) and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, derechos) have presented unique opportunities to observe engineering macroethical responsibilities, because unjust social, economic, and environmental systems have been brought to the forefront amidst the responses (e.g., inequitable transportation access). In this paper, we consider pandemics and natural disasters through the lens of engineering macroethics, aiming to understand students' perceptions about the macroethical responsibilities of engineers. In the fall of 2020, we deployed a survey to undergraduate engineering students at two universities (n=424). Students were asked to discuss what they perceived to be the role of engineering professionals in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters. We used a qualitative content analysis to explore the macroethical responsibilities mentioned in students' responses. Many of these responses include considerations of infrastructure resilience, resource distribution, and community equity. Logit models were used to identify which sociodemographic factors were associated with responses that included macroethical responsibilities, revealing engineering major (specifically, civil engineering), employment status, gender identity, and family size, among others as significant factors. The implications from this study include recommendations on curricular content, and identifying which student sociodemographic groups would especially benefit from macroethical content in coursework. © 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.

ASCE's Response to the Pandemic: Execution of a Remote ExCEEd Teaching Workshop

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Excellence in Civil Engineering Education (ExCEEd) Teaching Workshop (ETW) started in 1999 and has produced 1035 graduates from 266 colleges and universities throughout the world. ASCE has conducted 44 week-long, in-person workshops without interruption for over two decades. The ExCEEd graduates returned to their home universities and applied the lessons of this workshop to the classes they teach. The details and long-term benefits of the ETW have been reported in many venues. In Spring 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic swept the nation and remained a persistent threat throughout 2021. As a result, the in-person workshops scheduled for Summer 2020 and Summer 2021 were canceled. This paper is the third in a three-part series that describe and assess how ASCE modified and continued the ExCEEd program during this difficult period. This third paper focuses on the behind-the-curtain activities conducted before and during the two-week virtual remote ETW (R-ETW) held from July 5-16, 2021. The findings are shared through the perspectives of the R-ETW Site Coordinator, Content Providers, Mentors, Assistant Mentors, and to a lesser degree, the participants. This paper covers the implementation of the planning and logistics of the R-ETW rehearsals, execution, challenges overcome, assessment of the effort, and recommendations for the future. Effects of the changes are described in the context of the ExCEEd Teaching Model. The challenges and opportunities discussed in this paper are of interest to higher education and professional communities interested in forming or developing virtual workshops or learning communities with missions similar to that of the ASCE ETW. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022.

Triaging Two Week Wait Referrals According to ABS Guidelines Established During the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Safe Practice

Aim: CoVid-19 has affected healthcare globally, disrupting cancer care. Two weeks wait (2ww) breast cancer referrals were triaged according to Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) guidelines with patients with no red flag symptoms deemed low risk and able to be discharged back to their GP. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of implementing these guidelines. Method: A database was established to prospectively collect 2ww breast cancer referrals from the outset of CoVid-19. Two Consultants triaged the referrals and if there was disagreement, a third Consultant arbitrated. Data were recorded for patient age, gender, presenting complaint, assessment, investigations, diagnosis, and outcome and also time from initial referral to discharge letter to the GP. Results: 188 patients were referred via the 2ww pathway to St Bartholomew's Hospital from 22/03/2020 to 08/04/2020. 43 (22.9%) were discharged with a median age of 34 (22-83 years) at the time of referral. The mean time from referral receipt to response was 12.1 (0 - 60 days). 15 (34.9%) patients were subsequently re-referred. Mean time from re-referral to one-stop clinic assessment was 9.1 (2 - 22 days), in keeping with NICE two week wait criteria. Of the patients re-referred, all patients underwent imaging in the form of mammogram and/or ultrasound scan. No patients were found to have pre-invasive or invasive disease. Conclusions: Triaging patients based on GP referrals is a safe way of streamlining low risk patients. This has the potential to become standard practice worldwide but requires larger multi-centre studies prior to implementation.

What Role do Civil Engineering Students See for their Profession in the COVID-19 Response?

Engineering education typically focuses on technical knowledge rather than ethical development. When ethics are incorporated into curriculum, the focus is usually on microethics concerning issues that arise in particular contexts and interactions between individuals, rather than macroethics that address broad societal concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a unique opportunity to assess macroethical understanding because unjust social, economic, and environmental systems have been brought to the forefront of the response. In this study, we aim to understand students' awareness of unjust systems and the ethical responsibilities of engineers. At the beginning of the pandemic in the United States, in April 2020, we deployed a survey to undergraduate engineering students at two universities. We asked students to explain what they perceived to be the role of the engineering profession in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. This paper focuses on 84 responses of undergraduate civil engineering students across two universities. We used qualitative analyses (deductive and inductive coding) to explore responses in which macroethics are present and those responses that they are not. We then use inferential statistics to test whether the presence of macroethics in responses is associated with sociodemographic factors. We show that there are statistically significant differences across student responses given certain sociodemographic factors. Responses from women focused more on macroethics as compared to responses from men. There was also a difference in responses between the universities surveyed, potentially capturing that institutional differences may impact students' macroethical development. Implications from this study include recommendations on curricular content and identifying which student demographic groups would benefit most from intentional macroethical content in coursework. Further it is worth exploring in the future if increasing diversity and representation of women in engineering may impact the engineering industry's focus on macroethics based on these findings. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2021