Drafting a Code of Ethics for Engineering Education
R. Alan Cheville
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract— Some within the engineering education community
have asserted that engineering education should be considered a
profession. While the formal meaning and identifying
characteristics of a profession are debated, in general an
individual that is considered professional meets at least three
criteria: recognized expertise drawn from a widely accepted
body of knowledge, accepted norms of professional behavior, and
adherence to codified ethical standards. This paper addresses
the third of these issues by exploring canons that could and
should be contained within an engineering education code of
ethics. To develop the framework for a code of conduct,
published ethical codes from four professions—engineering,
education, law, and medicine—were analyzed for both content
and structure. Both areas of overlap and divergence within the
codes were identified. From the areas of overlap between these
professional canons a draft code of ethics for engineering
education was developed and is compared with the recent
American Society for Engineering Education code of ethics. The
development process and resulting draft are presented to
stimulate larger discussion within the engineering education
community around purposes for engineering education.
Keywords—ethics, ethical code, profession, professional
I. INTRODUCTION
Editorials on engineering education have made the claim
that it is becoming or should be a discipline [1], or at least a
field of scientific inquiry [2]. For the purposes of argument,
this paper will posit that engineering education is: 1) a
discipline, 2) a professional activity, and 3) distinct from other
disciplines an engineering educator may also belong to such as
mechanical or civil engineering.
The origin of the word “profession” comes from the Latin
for public declaration and was first used in the Middle Ages in
a religious context, but over time its meaning evolved to
encompass the occupation one professes to be skilled in, an
implicit acknowledgement of expertise, and those who are
skilled in that occupation. The word “professional” is also
used in a vernacular sense to distinguish experts from
amateurs, e.g. in sports. Thus a professional has a high level
of technique that distinguishes her or him from amateurs.
Furthermore a professional is expected to behave as a
professional both on and off the field. Technique and
behavior set the perceptions of a profession. For example
mental images of a physician may suggest dress and
work environment. Professional codes often address image
and identity either implicitly or explicitly [3]. Many fields
seek the designation as a profession for the status and
independent governance it brings.
John Heywood Trinity
College, Dublin The
University of Dublin
Dublin, Ireland
Beyond competence and behavior, a profession is also
defined by ethical standards that are freely accepted by those
who choose to be members of the profession. Davis states that
“ethical standards, not standards of competence or
organizations, seem to distinguish professions from other
skilled occupations” [4]. Part of being a member of a
profession is to agree to abide by that profession’s ethical
code. Kallenberg [3] has outlined five ways that a code of
ethics supports professional identity.
For engineering educators to distinguish themselves as a
profession they must meet the three criteria of: the existence
of a common body of knowledge that defines expertise,
expectations of behavior that distinguish one from others in
society broadly, and ethical standards. While a body of
knowledge does exist [5], not all engineering educators
subscribe to it in a way that affects their practice. Society does
expect certain behaviors of university faculty. Similarly a
code of ethics was recently approved and published by ASEE.
This paper investigates the adequacy of ASEE’s
engineering education code of ethics by broadly exploring
published professional codes in engineering, education, law,
and medicine; categorizing canons common to these
professions into nine topics; and comparing these to the code
of ethics produced by ASEE. Areas of overlap and divergence
between canons led to a synthesis that was used to draft a code
of ethics for engineering education that addresses canons of
professionalism the ASEE code fails to capture. The draft
code is explored from a pragmatic standpoint using
Kallenberg’s five lenses [3] and from a standpoint of practice
using Hoyle’s definitions of extended and restricted
professionalism [6].
The act of drafting a code of ethics both frames a moral
ideal and acknowledges that engineering education has
specific knowledge requirements from which a consensus for
how that knowledge should be used needs to emerge [4].
Clearly the authors cannot speak for all engineering educators
on what the ideals of our discipline should be. Therefore the
intent of this paper is not to present a code for immediate
adoption, rather it offers tenets that provide centers of dialog,
stimulating discussion within the engineering education
community around issues of professional identity. A code of
ethics may also be useful for illuminating tensions inherent to
the multiple roles assumed by engineering faculty.
II. EXPLORING PROFESSIONAL ETHICAL CODES
While there are many career paths that claim to be a
profession [7] in this study we analyzed ethical codes from
engineering, education, medicine, and law. The inclusion of
978-1-4799-8454-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
engineering and education are obvious. Medicine is included
due to the emphasis on the physician-patient relationship
which may provide insights into ethics of student-teacher
relations. Similarly law was included since the law is a living
body of knowledge that is continually reinterpreted by the
legal profession much in the way the engineering state of the
art is constantly evolving and needs to be reinterpreted by
educators. Codes of ethics from representative professional
organizations including engineering (NSPE, IEEE, ASME),
education (NEA, English Government, ASEE), law (ABA),
and medicine (AMA) were analyzed and the canons grouped
into similar broad categories.
The structure of codes varies between professions. While
engineering and education codes typically consist of an
extensive list of statements that serve as canons, law and
medicine define a smaller number of overarching canons
which are expanded upon by lengthier, contemporary written
opinions. Here we focus only on canons, ignoring opinions.
These canons were sorted into nine broad, inclusive topics that
are common between most codes, and listed in Table 1. Table
1 also compares similarities and differences between canons
of the four professions within these topics.
The overlap of canons with the nine topics is imperfect.
Multiple canons may address aspects of one topic or one
canon may overlap with multiple topics. Furthermore each
profession’s canons emphasizes some topics more than others.
In addition, most codes have a preamble stating the larger
ideals of the profession that the code of ethics serves to
support. In the case of engineering the ideal is public welfare
or quality of life, in education human dignity and truth, in
medicine patient care, and in law justice.
The ASEE board of directors has recently published a code
of ethics [8]. The preamble states those members who
perform professional work in a technical discipline serve the
ideal of public welfare. The code lists fourteen canons that
closely align with canons of other engineering codes. Ten of
the fourteen canons of ASEE’s code align directly with the
topics listed in in Table 1. The four exceptions are the first
three canons of the ASEE code that define obligations
members have for students to: understand ethical
responsibility, work towards human welfare, and be aware
of impact. The thirteenth element of ASEE’s code partially
aligns with topic (5), professional relationships, but also
addresses the stipulation for fair assessment. ASEE’s code
does not address topic (9), while (1) is addressed through
codes of another engineering discipline if the ASEE
member does technical work in that discipline. It is not clear
what ideals ASEE members follow if they do not perform
technical work. Furthermore, since nearly all canons of
ASEE’s code have correspondences in other engineering
codes there is significant redundancy for those ASEE
members who are affiliated with a technical engineering
discipline. Finally, the close alignment with engineering codes
results in ASEE’s code failing to capture some canons of other
professional codes relevant to education broadly
III. A DRAFT CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The nine broad topics of Table 1 were used to draft an
engineering education code of ethics. For each of the nine
topics relevant canons were drawn from ethical codes from the
four professions. The synthesized code is given below with
canons listed in the same order as Table 1. A preamble
outlines the ideals for the profession of engineering education.
 Table 1: Topics common between professional ethical codes

Topic Comparative Notes

1) Obligation for the All explicitly address the greater good, but vary in definitions. Engineering codes put the public welfare above other concerns but
greater good or public do not define it. Medicine is focused more on individuals than the public at large with an emphasis on care, dignity, and rights.
welfare Education emphasizes the greater good least with a general statement of belief in the value of education. Law frames good through
the lens of justice and places the profession at the nexus of upholding trust in a system of laws.
2) Relation to those Engineering and education treat individuals equally regardless of race, gender, or other factors. In addition the legal and medical
outside the profession professions are charged with providing access to professional services for all individuals.
3) Professional roles Most professions give stipulations about avoiding conflicts of interest but otherwise implicitly assume the professional plays a single
and conflicts of role. Law explicitly identifies multiple roles played by lawyers and addresses when these roles are harmonious and how
interest conflicts between multiple roles are to be resolved.
4) Relations with Engineering defines service to employers and clients while educators predominately serve students and to a lesser extent schools.
those whom the Medicine allows the physician choice of whom to serve with the provision patients are cared for. Law serves clients, but
profession serves lawyers also act as agents of the court and as private citizens have an obligation to serve justice.
5) Professional All codes of ethics have an obligation to maintain the reputation and standards of the profession and report those whose acts or
reputation, character are unprofessional. Engineering places the most emphasis on these and medicine the least. Engineering and education put
relationships, and some stipulations on behaviour towards others within the profession. Law additionally requires respect for the legal system and
responsibilities judicial process, as well as independent self-governance.
6) Professional All discuss competence, but engineering places more explicit emphasis on boundaries of competence than other professions and how
competence qualifications are represented. Some educational codes are highly specific.
7) Need for All codes address the need for confidentiality within the limits of law for those they serve. Both law and medicine go into detail in
confidentiality specific opinions that are ancillary to the main canons.
8) Need for Some (but not all) engineering and education codes make explicit mention of the need for continuing education and the obligation to
continuing education contribute to others’ professional development. This is not a primary precept for lawyers, but physicians have an explicit
commitment to continue their own education, medical and patient education more generally, as well as advance the state of the
9) Commitment to art.
Engineering and education codes discuss upholding societal values. Law and medicine have canons of advocacy in which medicine
advocacy advocates for patient interests and law advocates for access to and fairness of justice, particularly for vulnerable members of society.
 The Engineering Educator’s Code of Ethics
Preamble: Engineering education has a large impact on the
world, serving the ideal of human development through
education and the ideal of truth through scholarship.
Engineering educators respect the impacts culture and
individuality have on these ideals. To serve these ideals
engineering educators:
1) Recognize that engineers and engineering works may
impact the world for good or for ill. Engineering
educators strive to develop their own and students’
capacity for moral purpose, serve as an example of human
life lived well, and recognize the rights of others to define
their own welfare and quality of life.
2) Treat others fairly, support others’ learning at all times, and
honor differences between learners that arise through
opportunity and culture.
3) Balance responsibilities of the multiple roles they assume
within the education system.
a. In the role of a teacher or mentor the engineering
educator seeks to support learning, professional
development, and enabling human thriving through
education.
b. In the role of a scholar the engineering educator
dedicates himself or herself to seeking truth and
awareness of his/her own ideology.
c. In the role of an administrator, the engineering
educator is guided by principles of fairness, justice,
and compromise.
d. In the role of a patron, constituent, or client the
engineering educator provides actionable feedback to
improve education and helps support others’
professional development.
While most times these roles are harmonious, in some
cases the engineering educator will face ethical dilemmas
that arise from overlaps of these roles. Resolving such
conflict requires both adherence to law and moral
judgment, tempered with respect for colleagues and
students, and the recognition that vulnerable populations
may often lack a voice. The engineering educator
acknowledges the tensions inherent in supporting
individual learners and an educational system with limited
resources while undertaking unbiased evaluation of
learning.
4) Serve educational needs
through:
a. supporting the needs of learners and upholding the
rights of all individuals to an education with
particular care for the vulnerable and disadvantaged;
b. recognizing the impact of credentials and the
limitations inherent to measuring learning, and
striving to improve how learning is assessed;
c. recognizing that learning occurs within a community
and valuing the diverse expertise and contributions of
their colleagues and the supports offered by the wider
educational institution in which they function; and
d. building professional liaisons with others across the
education system and those who employ engineering
graduates.
5) Uphold standards of professionalism in any role they play
within the education system.
6) Balance their role as an educator with their role as an
engineer by accurately interpreting state-of-the-art
engineering theory and practice for learners and drawing
upon the science of learning to effectively promote and
support student development.
7) Act in ways that develop and hold the trust and confidence
of others so as to support their role as teacher and mentor.
8) Seek to advance, apply, and integrate the state of the art in
both education and engineering theory and practice and
dedicate themselves to life-long professional
development.
9) Recognize a responsibility to participate in activities that
contribute to access to education, and seek changes to
situations that are contrary to the best interests of learners.
In creating this code professional ideals were outlined in
the preamble since Davis [4] points out that a code of ethics
serves “…as a way a profession defines relations between
those who want to serve a common ideal...” Adopting other
ideals would necessitate changes to the code. To be useful
codes need to be written for a given audience; the code above
was written for engineering educators to acknowledge the
ethical dilemmas potentially introduced by the multiple roles
they inhabit. Kallenberg acknowledges that while any code of
ethics must be imperfect, imperfect codes may be useful to
trained professionals [3]. Such imperfections may be offset by
extended written opinions such as those in law and medicine.
Kallenberg [3] points out that ethical code may be interpreted
through five different lenses:
1. As an emblem that distinguishes the profession from
others in society.
2. As guidelines to action written for those with sufficient
expertise in the profession to understand their application.
3. As a covenant of behavior one must agree to in order
to retain membership in the profession.
4. As centers of conversation that allow dialog around
inevitable ethical tensions.
5. As a framework for what is ethically allowed in
a profession rather than what is forbidden.
The code above is designed to the extent possible to serve
these purposes. By adopting canons of care and advocacy
from law and medicine the code serves as an emblem to
distinguish the profession of engineering education from
education and engineering more generally. As guidelines to
action, the code frames responsibilities around assessment,
social justice, and advocacy. As a covenant the code seeks to
identify moral purposes which engineering educators can
freely commit to. As a center of conversation the code
acknowledges ethical dilemmas that may arise from role
conflicts in order to stimulate dialog. The code is
furthermore written to define and promote behaviors rather
than proscribe them.
IV. RESTRICTED VS. EXTENDED PROFESSIONALISM
The draft code of ethics presented previous was drafted to
stimulate dialog on one element that engineering education
requires to be considered a profession. In a larger sense what
does it mean to be a professional? Since a code of ethics is
designed to guide behaviors, in crafting the code we consider
whether engineering educators are or should be “restricted” or
“extended” professionals, borrowing from Hoyle’s definition
[6]. A restricted professional is one who relies primarily on
their own insights and intuition developed through their day- V. CONCLUSIONS
to- day experiences. An extended professional is guided by
the theory underlying their experiences and approaches The code of ethics drafted from common canons of four
problems using a more rational and scholarly approach. For professions was created for several purposes; to stimulate
example from a historical perspective the 1955 Grinter dialog around engineering education as a profession and to
report [9] defined the ways engineering should be taught to serve as a foil for the ASEE code have already been
align better with expectations of an extended profession. mentioned. Other questions arise in the application of an
ethical code. For example what implications does an ethical
Table 2: Restricted vs. Extended code have for technique (pedagogy), and how might
Professionalism in Engineering engineering education sanction those who are somehow
Education
Restricted professionalism in (#) Extended professionalism in
deemed to behave unprofessionally?
engineering education engineering education
Instructional skills derived from 8 Instructional skills derived from There are additionally questions of professional identity
experience mediation between experience
and theory [10] that the code raises explicitly. These are highlighted as
Perspective limited to immediate 1,3, Perspective embracing broader tensions within the code to highlight that they need to be
time and place 4 social context of education. navigated consciously and explicitly, a question the current
Lecture room and laboratory 4c,7 Lecture room and laboratory ASEE code does not address. These questions of the identity
events perceived in isolation. events perceived in relation to of faculty members are in some ways microcosms of the
institution policies and goals.
identity crisis of universities at the present time. As the role
Introspective with regard to 8 Instructional methods compared
methods of instruction with those of colleagues and with of the university in society and the economy has changed over
reports of practice. the past decade, these questions of identity loom large.
Value placed on autonomy in 4d Value placed on professional Regardless of economic function and any utilitarian role of a
research and teaching. collaboration in research and university, a code of ethics stipulates that there is also a moral
teaching. imperative in claiming to be an educator that transcends this
Limited involvement in non- 3 High involvement in non- context. This code’s canons of advocacy, social justice, and
teaching professional and teaching professional and
collegial activities collegial activities. the defining ideals of truth and human development make
Infrequent reading of 8 Regular reading of professional these explicit. A code of ethics that is well designed should
professional literature in literature in educational theory help individuals navigate such dilemmas.
educational theory and practice. and practice.
Involvement in continuing 8 Involvement in continuing ACKNOWLEDGMENT
professional development limited professional development work
and confined to practical courses that includes substantial courses The authors thank Meriel Huggard for critical review of
mainly of a short duration. of a theoretical nature. the manuscript.
Instruction (teaching) seen as an Instruction (teaching) seen as a
intuitive activity. rational activity.
Instruction (teaching) considered 3 Instruction (teaching) considered
less important than research. as important as research.
Assessment is a routine matter. 4b,c Assessment is designed for
The responsibility for learning. Achievement is the co-
achievement lies with the student responsibility of the institution,
instructor (teacher) and student.

An interpretation of
Hoyle’s definition [6] for
engineering education is
provided in Table 2. The
alignment with canons of
the draft code are shown in
the middle column of Table
2 with the numbers
corresponding to the
numbered points in the code
of ethics on the previous
page. This distinction
between restricted and
extended professionalism
may help complement the
ethical code in several
ways. First, while a code
of ethics defines what it
means to be considered a
member of a profession,
Table 2 indicates the extent
of professionalism and thus
may serve as a basis for
extended, written opinions
like law and medicine have
adopted. Second, such a
table provides practical
guidelines for action and
further centers of
conversation [3]. Third,
Table 2 can serve as an
emblem to better
distinguish engineering
education professionals
from engineers or educators
more generally.
philosophical inquiry," in
R Philosophy and
E Engineering: Reflections
F on Practice and Principles
E and Process, D. P.
R Michfelder, N. McCarthy,
E and D. E. Goldberg, Eds., ed
N Dordrecht: Springer, 2013.
C
E
S
[1] D. Radcliffe, "Shaping the
Discipline of Engineering
Education,"
Journal of
Engineering Education,
vol. 95, pp. 263-264, 2006.
[2] J. E. Froyd and J. R.
Lohmann, "Chronological
and Ontological
Development of Engineering
Education as a Field of
Scientific Inquiry,"
in Cambridge Handbook of
Engineering Education, A.
Johri and B. M. Olds, Eds.,
ed New York: Cambridge,
2013.
[3] B. J. Kallenberg, By Design:
Ethics, Theology, and the Practice of
Engineering. Eugene, OR:
Cascade Books, 2013.
[4] M. Davis, Thinking Like an
Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a
Profession. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
[5] J. Heywood, Engineering
Education : Research and
Development in
Curriculum and
Instruction. New York:
Wiley-IEEE Press, 2005. [6]
E. Hoyle,
"Professionalization and
deprofessionalization," in
Professional Development of
Teachers: World Year Book of
Education,
1980, E. Hoyle and J. Megarry,
Eds., ed London: Kogan Page,
1980.
[7] J. Heywood and R. A.
Cheville, "Is engineering
education a professional
activity?", presented at the
American Society for
Engineering Education
Annual Conference, Seattle,
WA, 2015.
[8] ASEE Board of Governors,
(2012). American Society for
Engineering
Education Code of Ethics.
Available:
https://www.asee.org/me
mber-
resources/resources/Code
_of_Ethics.pdf
[9] G. Report, "Report on
evaluation of engineering education
(reprint of
the 1955 report)," Journal of
Engineering Education, vol. 93,
pp. 74-94,
1994.
[10] R. Korte, "The formulation
of engineering identities:
Storytelling as