A STUDY OF THE ETHICAL ORIENTATION OF CO-OP STUDENTS

Introduction

Co-op students are routinely confronted by ethical dilemmas while on cooperative education assignments and repeatedly make value-laden decisions. They may not, however, recognize the underlying ethical bases for such decision-making. Although several ethical orientations are discussed in the literature, no studies were found that identify the ethical orientation favored by undergraduate students when deciding ethical issues. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the ethical orientation of undergraduate students and, further, to find out if this orientation changes as they progress through an undergraduate program.

With insight into the ethical orientations of students, co-op educators will have better information to integrate ethical concepts into their co-op advising.

General Ethical Orientations

Educators generally agree that there are two main theories of normative ethics that define ethical orientation: goal-based theories and duty-based theories (Baum, 1983; Evans, 1988; Luegenbiehl, 1983; Martin & Schinzinger, 1983). These theories are termed normative because they rely on norms or standards to judge whether actions are right or wrong.

Goal-based theories, also called teleological theories and utilitarianism (Mill, 1863), maintain that producing good consequences and avoiding bad ones are ultimately the only morally important considerations. Duty-based theories, also called deontological theories, maintain that actions are right when they conform to principles of duty that encompass more than good consequences.

Ethical orientations may be divided further into act and rule orientations depending on the importance placed on general rules. For the act-based orientation, the utility of the act is primary. In the rule-based orientation, the utility of the rule is primary.

For example, act-utilitarianism says we should examine each individual action to determine whether it will produce the most general good for the most people ( Martin & Schinzinger, 1983 ). Generalizations like "keep your promises" or "don't take bribes" may provide useful guidelines based on past experience, but they do not answer the critical question as to whether always "telling the truth" or "not taking bribes" leads to the greatest general good in a particular case.

Rule-utilitarianism makes rules primary. People should always act on those rules that if generally followed, would produce the most good for the most people. Individual actions are justified only if they conform to such rules. Thus, a rule utilitarian might say we ought to "keep a promise" or "not take bribes," even though such acts do not always have the best consequences, because the general practice leads to good consequences.

Duty-based theories deny what goal-based theories affirm (Frankena, 1973). Duty-based theories assert that there are other considerations that may make an action right or necessary besides the utility of its consequences. For example, one is always duty-bound to be fair and not deceive, even when such practices will not lead to the best consequences in a given situation.

As with goal-based orientations, there are two kinds of duty-based orientations: act and rule, depending on the role of general rules. An act-deontological orientation cannot have a criterion of rightness of either consequences or rules, so each individual situation must be decided separately without the benefits of rules or consequences.

On the other hand, a rule-deontological orientation holds that there are universal standards of right - rules or laws that are applicable to all rational beings (Baum, 1983; Martin & Schinzinger, 1983). Usually, a rule-based orientation holds to several specific rules, for example, "always tell the truth" or "never take bribes," that say people should always act in a certain way in a certain kind of situation.

These four ethical orientations (goal-based versus duty-based and act-based versus rule-based) provided the theoretical framework for the study.

In summary, Evans argues that Western ethics are pluralistic in nature because they blend the deontologic principle of "do not cause harm without reason" and the teleologic principle of "maximize human welfare" (1988, p.150).

Ethical Core Concepts

At the National Project on Philosophy and Engineering Ethics, a project funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and administered by the Center for the Study of Human Dimensions of Science and Technology at the Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, Oldenquist and Slawter (1979) examined several engineering codes of ethics and identified three basic core concepts common to most engineering codes of ethics: (1) the public trust; (2) qualities of truth, honesty, and fairness; and (3) professional performance.

Design of the Study

Subjects. The population of 255 freshman, sophomore, middler, junior, and senior civil engineering students participating in the five year baccalaureate cooperative education program and enrolled at Northeastern University during the spring quarter 1988 were the subjects of this study. Except for freshmen and seniors, half the students were in school while the other half were working in cooperative education positions.

A specially designed instrument consisting of twelve hypothetical professional ethical situations was used to collect the data. An edited copy of the instrument may be found in Appendix 1. Ideas for the ethical situations came from the core ethical concepts presented by Oldenquist and Slawter (1979), the ECPD/ ASCE Code of Ethics, and the National Society of Professional Engineers' Code of Ethics. There were four questions for each of the three core ethical concept areas of public interest: qualities of truth, honesty, fairness, and professional performance. A panel of five experts supported the content validity of the instrument.

Treatment of the Data. Each of the twelve ethical situations required respondents to rate on a six-point Likert scale the importance of (1) their own sense of right and wrong (act orientation), (2) the rules governing engineering behavior ( rule orientation), and ( 3) the consequences of their decision (goal/ duty orientation), when making professional ethical decisions. The possible response range was " not at a 11" (0) to " very . important " (5) .

The independent variable in this study was year, which referred to the level of the student in school, (i.e., freshman through senior years). The dependent variables were (1) act orientation, (2) rule orientation, and (3) goal/duty orientation (a combination of the goal-based and duty-based orientations).

The first variable, act orientation, was inferred from the mean of the responses to the question, "How important to you is your own sense of right and wrong?" The second variable, rule orientation, was inferred from the mean of the responses to the question, "How important to you are the rules governing engineering behavior?" The third variable, goal/duty orientation, was inferred from the mean of the responses to the question, "How important to you are the consequences of your decision?" Additionally, subscale scores were calculated for each of the three Ethical Core Concept areas: truthfulness, public, and competence.

Methodological Limitations of the Study. This study was an attempt to investigate a process. Ideally, processes should be investigated using longitudinal rather than cross-sectional methodology ( Corwin et al., 1961 ): the cross-sectional approach assumes homogeneity of respondents, that current seniors have the same characteristics as the freshmen; while the longitudinal approach has the advantage of using the same respondents for the entire study (Mouly, 1978). Since comparisons are based on groups at one point in time instead of the same individuals over time, they provide only indirect evidence of change in individuals (Corwin et al., 1961).

A second limitation of the study is that no attempt was made to control for the possible influence of variety or quality of co-op experiences on students' ethical orientation. For example, it could be argued that those students who worked only in construction settings, as opposed to those who worked only in consulting or design settings, might express different professional ethical orientations. Since, however, co-op experience was not examined in this study, its impact on students' ethical orientation remains unknown.

A third limitation is that this is only a pencil-and-paper exercise intended to measure professed ethical orientation of students. To measure the actual ethical orientation of students would involve collecting data as soon as possible after an ethical dilemma has been resolved.

A fourth limitation is the absence of a control group of students not participating in co-op and, thus, eliminating any possible measurement of the effects of co-op experience.

Research Questions. The study sought to determine if civil engineering students showed a professional ethical orientation, and if that orientation changes as a student proceeds through school. Therefore, the following research questions guided the investigation: ( 1) What ethical orientations do civil engineering students demonstrate when making professional ethical decisions?; (2) Does the ethical orientation of the students change as they progress through a civil engineering undergraduate curriculum?; (3) Do students express the same professional ethical orientation for each core concept?

Results of the Study

When asked if they had encountered an ethical dilemma while on co-op, 33 percent of the sample responded they had. When the freshmen were removed from the analysis, the response rate of those affirming having experience an ethical dilemma rose to 40 percent. If students responded that they had encountered an ethical dilemma while on co-op, they were asked to describe the dilemma by responding to an open-ended question without mentioning specific names of people, firms, or jobs.

Examples of ethical dilemmas reported by students that concerned the core ethical concept of truth, honesty, and fairness, included: instructions to withhold information and lie to clients; payment authorization for work not performed; stealing of building materials; offers of bribes and gifts to approve inflated construction material accounts; sexual and racial harassment of coworkers; falsification of survey notes; unauthorized use of company cars, computers, and equipment; and falsification of time sheets.

For the core ethical concept of public safety, examples of ethical dilemmas reported by students included: requests by clients not to report failed test results; alteration of test results to meet client needs or design conditions; improper disposal of hazardous materials; drug and alcohol abuse; instructions to ignore Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and safety infractions; requests by clients to approve substandard building materials and work that was not up to design specification; and failure to report modifications to design.

For the core ethical concept of professional competence, examples of ethical dilemmas reported by students included: inadequate training to perform field tests; and lack of engineering training required to approve shop drawings.

In general, most of the ethical dilemmas reported by students involved construction sites or the collection of field data, and work environments that offered less structure than office design settings, and consequently, required more autonomy and decision making by the student.

Almost all students considered the consequences of their actions as "important." Only one student in the sample answered "not at all" to all twelve ethical situations regarding consequences, exhibiting perhaps the only true duty-based orientation in the sample. There was no significant difference by year-of-graduation for the goal/ duty orientation variable, and the class means did not show any consistent upward or downward trend by year.

The ethical orientation of civil engineering students was expected to be goal-based because the literature suggests that practicing engineers make goal-based ethical decisions and consider the consequences of their actions very important Qames, 1981; Nelson & Peterson, 1982). The data supported this hypothesis. More than half (54%) of the students had a mean score of 4.00 or greater and nearly one third (32%) had a mean score of 4.50 (very important) or greater on the goal/duty orientation scale. These results suggest that the civil engineering profession attracts students with a high goal-based orientation, which remains essentially unchanged during the civil engineering program.

A crosstabulation was conducted to determine if ethical orientation changed over time, and the resulting crosstabulations of the two ethical orientations (act-based and rule-based) by year are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of Ethical Orientation By Year

By a ratio of two to one, students rated their sense of right and wrong (act-based orient; ion) as more important than the rules governing engineering behavior (rule-based orientation) when making ethical decisions. This finding seems counter to Paustenbach's (1987) postulation that because most practicing engineers work in the private sector, they are in no position to make decisions about the ethics of projects in which they participate. Therefore, they must rely on engineering standards and laws for guidance regarding the appropriateness of their decisions.

Table 1 also shows that while nearly one of every two freshmen (47%) were identified as act-based, more than four of every five seniors (83%) were identified as act-based. Therefore, the ethical orientation of students does seem to change as they progress through a civil engineering undergraduate curriculum.

Only the freshman class was rule-based when making ethical decisions. All other classes ( sophomore through senior) were act-based and rated their own sense of right and wrong as more important than the rules governing engineering behavior when making ethical decisions. Overall, there was a general increase in the percentage of students identifying an act-based orientation as compared to a rule-based orientation - from 47 percent in the freshmen year to 83 percent in the senior year, with one aberrant drop in the junior year (see Table 1 ).

As Table 1 shows, juniors were less concerned with their own sense of right and wrong (act-based orientation) than either seniors or middlers. The drop in the percentage of students favoring an act-based ethical orientation in the junior year, may be a function of two factors. First, it may be just a chance fluctuation in either the middler or junior years. Second, it may be that as students are introduced to areas of engineering specialty in the classroom (e.g., environmental, transportation, structural, construction, or geotechnical engineering), usually in the junior year, they also tend to change co-op jobs and, consequently, are working in new and less familiar surroundings. Until they become more familiar and comfortable with the new work environment, juniors might rely less on their sense of right and wrong and more on the rules of engineering behavior to solve both ethical and engineering problems. By the time juniors have become seniors, however, they have "learned the ropes" and again are more act-based in their ethical decision making.

In her study of clinical nursing practice and how knowledge accrues over time in the practice of an applied discipline, Benner states that "one can reasonably expect [one] to perform at the expert level, for example, in familiar situations and at the competent or even advanced beginner level in less familiar ones." Benner further defines experience as "not necessarily refer[ing] to longevity or length of time in a position; rather, it refers to a very active process of refining and changing preconceived theories, notions, and ideas when confronted with actual situations" (1984, p.178). Additionally, in an earlier study of skill acquisition and skill-training, Dreyfus and Dreyfus ( 1980) found that, as students accrue experience and become skilled, they depend less on abstract principles and more on concrete expenence.

This may be the case for students in a cooperative education program. They tend to be rule-based as they begin the engineering program and gradually move toward an act-based orientation as they gain experience in civil engineering. But, they revert to a rule-based orientation when confronted with a new environment or situation.

Data were analyzed to determine if students expressed the same professional ethical orientation for each core concept.

Core Ethical Concept: Truthfulness Questions addressing the core ethical concept of truth, honesty, and fairness presented ethical dilemmas about accepting gifts, using company equipment for personal gain, unauthorized use of software, and falsification of time slips.

Most of the students in this study do not use formal rules to guide their ethical decisions relating to the qualities of truth, honesty, and fairness (don't lie, cheat, or steal). This act-based orientation was most pronounced in seniors where 97 percent were act-based for the core ethical concept of truthfulness. Overall, 82 percent of the students overwhelmingly showed an act-based ethical orientation, considering their own sense of right and wrong as more important than the rules governing engineering behavior.

Core Ethical Concept: Public Questions concerning the core ethical concept of public welfare presented ethical dilemmas about design errors, construction safety infractions, falsified test data, and improper disposal of hazardous waste. For the core ethical concept public, the sample tended to demonstrate an act-based ethical orientation, with 54 percent of the students considering their own sense of right and wrong as more important than the rules governing engineering behavior. Therefore, more students seem to demonstrate more loyalty to the rules of engineering behavior for the core ethical concept, public, than was found for the core ethical concept, truthfulness.

Core Ethical Concept: Competence Questions addressing the core ethical concept of professional competence presented ethical dilemmas about lack of engineering skills and expertise, questionable promises to a client, and misrepresentation of engineering credentials.

For the core ethical concept competence, the sample demonstrated a rule-based ethical orientation, with 54 percent of the students considering the rules of engineering behavior as more important than their own sense of right and wrong. This finding is in contrast to the overall ethical orientation and the core ethical concepts of truthfulness and public, where most the students demonstrated an act-based ethical orientation.

While two of every three freshmen (67%) were identified as rule-based for the core concept competence, only about one of every two seniors (53%) were. Middlers were the only class to show an act-based orientation (65%).

The findings suggest that students rely less on their sense of right and wrong and more on the rules of engineering behavior in deciding ethical conflicts that affect professional performance and competence than they do for the ideals of truth, honesty, and fairness. In deciding ethical dilemmas based on issues they probably have not experienced (lack of engineering skills and expertise, promises to a client, and misrepresentation of engineering credentials), students seem to feel more comfortable with the rules in helping them make a decision.

Table 2 provides a summary of ethical orientation by year for the ethical core concepts truthfulness, public, and competence.

Table 2
Summary of Ethical Orientations by Core Concept by Year

Summary and Recommendations

The principal findings of this study are as follows:

1. Civil engineering students consider the consequences of their ethical decisions to be important.
2. In general, civil engineering students are act-based in their ethical orientation, placing more importance on their own sense of right and wrong than on rules governing behavior when deciding ethical dilemmas.
3. Students change from a rule-based ethical orientation to an act-based ethical orientation as they progress through a civil engineering co-op program.
4. Of the three core ethical concepts, students considered the consequences of their actions most important relating to matters of public welfare.
5. Generally, students are act-based for the core ethical concepts truthfulness and public, and rule-based for the core ethical concept competence.

Because this study found evidence that students in a cooperative education program encounter serious ethical dilemmas as early as their first co-op experiences there are serious implications for faculty, co-op advisors and employers.

Teaching Professional Ethics. It was not the intent of this study to propose a specific curriculum outline to teach ethics. The fact that so many sophomores encountered an ethical dilemma during their first co-op experience suggests that an ethics curriculum should start during the freshman year as part of co-op orientation sessions and be reinforced throughout the entire curriculum. If made aware of potential ethical dilemmas, students should be better prepared to cope with them.

A more formal ethics education requirement should be part of the upperclass years, after students have had an opportunity to work on co-op. Structured seminars could be arranged that would allow students the opportunity to share co-op experiences with faculty and classmates. The seminars should cover a wide range of professional subject matter, including ethics. Seminars of this type would be useful in improving the essential practical skills described by Martin and Schinzinger ( 1983) that will help produce effective independent thought about moral issues, including competence in recognizing moral problems; increased skill in comprehending, clarifying, and critically assessing issues on opposing sides of moral arguments; and the ability to form consistent and comprehensive viewpoints based upon consideration of relevant facts.

On a more advanced level, students in engineering disciplines, for example, could be introduced to the client/management/engineer interaction in their design courses where the competition between the position of management and the technical position of design engineers is increasingly a front for value conflict.

Cooperative Education. In the field of cooperative education, there should be greater awareness and discussion by the co-op advisor and co-op employer about the potential for ethical conflict on the job, not only for freshmen who lack the skills and experience necessary to deal effectively with these situations, but for all students. It is essential that cooperative education advisors have the skills and background necessary to identify potential ethical conflicts that may confront students on co-op before they arise.

A major implication for co-op employers is that students need support and guidance in the work setting. They need instruction and guidance before ethical issues arise in setting priorities between their individual needs and the needs of the firm, the profession, and the public. Co-op employers should ensure that students are provided an overview of organizational goals and ethical expectations, as well as procedures for reporting ethical and professional issues. Too often, supervisors seem to concentrate on the technical requirements and ignore the ethical dimensions of the assignment.

To insure a realistic and supportive ethical atmosphere for co-op students, the employer's cooperative education or internship program should include the following key elements:

An orientation program that not only introduces the student to organizational goals and expectations but also stresses high ideals of ethical behavior and familiarizes the student with potential ethical pitfalls associated with the co-op position;

Appointment of a coordinator, ideally at the project management level, who expresses interest and enthusiasm for students and education and whom the student can contact should ethical issues arise.