THE ETHICAL DESIGN OF EMPATHY Why my background in design thinking and empathy has made me a better engineer and educator By Jessica Aldrich Wichita State University ‘19, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Florida University Innovation Fellow
The first thing that I had students in my classes do when I started teaching Engineering Ethics was to write down their legal name, their preferred name, and their pronouns. An inclusive practice like this isn’t common in traditional engineering courses. I then explained that, yes, this was an engineering class, but this was also ethics. And, in ethics we were going to spend the semester discussing topics that existed in the gray area. It was in this gray area that we were going to debate our views and have open discussions about differing opinions. But, at the end of the day, each person in that classroom would have a seat at the table where their lived experience mattered. A younger me wouldn’t have had the confidence to get on a soapbox and make statements about inclusion to students I had never met. As a scientist, I wouldn’t have been comfortable making claims that I hadn’t done the hands-on research for. But, in that classroom, it was my responsibility to prepare these future engineers for the world that existed beyond their education. I knew that empathy and inclusion were at the root of the decision making models I was about to teach. Empathy-led design isn’t directly in the content I’m given to lecture on. However, all ethical approaches come down to an individual’s judgment based on their own morals and values. Regardless of what approach we take — for example the net-goodness analysis or a points system for evaluating ethical dilemmas — at the end of the day, our view of empathy is the deciding factor. As we study ethical dilemmas in engineering, we often return to the engineering design process. This was something that I initially learned as the design thinking process. We define the problem, come up with solutions, test and iterate them, and then put a selected solution into practice. As engineers, if we cut corners 86
in the design process, we end up with disasters like the Challenger or the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill. We also end up in these disasters when meeting the bottom line becomes more important than following the Code of Ethics, like in the Takata airbag scandal. It is in reviewing this design process, after discussing a catastrophe, that I ask my students to put themselves in the shoes of those involved. Be it the engineer who made the error, the chief executive who faked reports, or the family member now grieving a loss. Initially, they claim that they would never cut corners for profit, or that they wouldn’t be afraid to be the whistleblower. But after discussing the thoughts, feelings, and then actions of each party involved, I watched the wheels click into place. My students brought the process full circle back to empathy. They realized there was more to an ethical dilemma than a right or wrong answer, contrary to what is taught in many engineering classes. I chose to end these class discussions with an open ended question: If we design with the health and well being of others in mind from the beginning (which is the first cannon in the Engineering Code of Ethics), would we make decisions that put lives at risk in the first place? Some days they would quietly pack their things, wipe down their tables, and walk out of class with an air of uncertainty. Other days, they would still be in the room trying to break down how a different outcome could have happened as my students for the next class were coming in. When we humanized the ethical dilemma, it became tangible for them to understand. Especially when they had different opinions on the ‘right’ answer. It can be easy to see situations as black and white, even when you aren’t trained as an engineer. Unless you are personally in the thick of it, how can you understand everything that goes into making a decision?
