A Comprehensive Overview of Approaches to

Teaching Ethics in a University Setting

Lise Safatly 1; Mona Itani 2; Issam Srour, A.M.ASCE 3; and Ali El-Hajj 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Improving the ethical thinking and analysis of university students is becoming an essential goal of modern curricula and program
designers in various disciplines. To support ethics learning via practical applications and decision-making scenarios, ethics instructors are
adding innovative methods to their multidisciplinary courses by following creative teaching practices and including diverse activities inside
and outside the classroom. In this paper, a review of activities that promote ethics learning and engagement of undergraduate students is
presented as a guide to devise a comprehensive framework for applying and promoting ethics. Ethics centers are also introduced as well-
organized hubs that plan, organize, and host activities to support ethics teaching and enhance student intellectual growth and community
services. The paper is enriched with numerous examples of activities and strategies for instructors and incentives for students extracted from
an intensive review conducted on more than 60 ethics centers and 40 syllabi of ethics courses offered in international colleges and universities.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000009. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Ethics centers; Ethics activities; Ethics in universities; Incentives for students; Teaching ethics.

Introduction morality is about individual conscience. Another explanation de-

Since the middle of the last century, teaching ethics has been intro-
duced in schools and universities as an essential component of under-
graduate programs (Pellegrino et al. 1985). Ethics courses have
become an integral part of the curriculum in various fields and dis-
ciplines (Keefer and Davis 2012), such as engineering (Colby and
Sullivan 2008; Harris and et al. 1996; Stephan 2001), business (Sims
and Sims 1991; Soule 2005), medicine (Fox et al. 1995; Thomas
2011), and education (Warnick and Silverman 2011). Accreditation
of programs in engineering, business, nursing, and medicine,
i.e., Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB),
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE), and Liaison
Committee on Medical Education (LCME), respectively, require
ethics learning via ethics courses throughout the curriculum. Such
courses enrich students’ ethical knowledge and enhance their cred-
ibility in job applications. Moreover, several studies assessed ethics
learning and the effect of the skills acquired by graduates on their
careers (Gautschi and Jones 1998; Self et al. 1989).
Some people avoid using the term morality but prefer using the
term ethical instead because of the crucial difference between these
terms. For instance, a common clarification of this difference is that
ethics is related to external, socially imposed norms, whereas
1
Research Associate, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
American Univ. of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4573-4721. Email: ls58@aub.edu.lb
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Management, American
Univ. of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon. Email: mi34@aub.edu.lb
3
Associate Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
American Univ. of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon. Email: is04@
aub.edu.lb
4
Professor, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, American
Univ. of Beirut, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon. Email: elhajj@aub.edu.lb
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 10, 2019; approved on
October 15, 2019; published online on January 28, 2020. Discussion period
open until June 28, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Civil Engineering
Education, © ASCE, ISSN 2643-9107.
fines ethics as concrete and practical whereas morality is more ab-
stract or could be related to religion. Morals is also linked to how
individuals deal with people they know, but ethics is about how
individuals deal with people they do not know. This basic clarifi-
cation of the difference between ethics and morals is mandatory
before tackling the ethics activities design.
In summary, ethics are a system of principles and a branch of
philosophy that defines what is good for individuals and society. Mo-
rals are individual standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is
and is not acceptable for them to do. Unfortunately, morals and ethics
are also tied up with standards, law, and religion. It is not uncommon
to conflate these topics, but if one is going to teach ethics, it is critical
that the teacher start with a firm an understanding of what the differ-
ences are and how the concepts and approaches interact.
Including ethics learning in the overloaded curricula of modern
undergraduate programs requires thorough planning of the related
activities whether in or beyond the classroom. Nowadays, ethics
learning of undergraduate students is gained via several activities
beyond the classroom, including organizing seminars and work-
shops, offering fellowships, planning field visits, and engaging stu-
dents through ethical games. These activities aim to demonstrate the
importance of ethics and its relevance to daily issues as well as stimu-
late students’ motivation to attend ethics courses or pursue ethics
certificates. Therefore, ethics instructors and researchers often debate
on the optimal strategy for designing and implementing outside-the-
classroom activities to enhance the students’ ethical standards.
In order to support ethics courses and activities, many univer-
sities have established ethics centers and tailored them to fit the
university environment and benefit from the surrounding commu-
nity and industry. The goal of these centers is to provide university
graduates with guided ethical thinking and high standards of integ-
rity and honesty (Safatly et al. 2017; Christopher 2001). In an ethics
center, faculty members from different disciplines cooperate with
civic engagement and community service professionals in order to
deliver specialized development plans and programs for ethics
learning. Those plans and programs include monthly seminars,
workshops, lectures, symposia, conferences, discussions, forums,

© ASCE 04020001-1 J. Civ. Eng. Educ.

J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001

 film screenings (Herkert 1997; Dyrud 1998; Yetmar 2008), and
other ethics-related activities.
The research methodology adopted in this work is an intensive
analysis of an online review of more than 40 ethics courses syllabi,
60 ethics centers, and universities’ best practices in integrating
ethics in academic institutions and curricula. The reviewed univer-
sities and ethics centers are listed in the Appendix. Based on the
review and analysis of such diverse online data, the paper presents a
comprehensive overview of approaches to teaching ethics in a uni-
versity setting. Ethics instructors can use this paper to enhance their
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
courses and to increase students’ motivation about ethics by adopt-
ing innovative methods inside and outside the classroom. More-
over, directors and coordinators of ethics programs and centers
in academic institutions would benefit from this paper by using it
as a guide to devise a comprehensive framework for applying and
teaching ethics or improving their current framework if applicable.
Finally, nonacademic personnel in various centers and units across
the academic institution would also benefit from this paper by
identifying possible means of collaboration with ethics centers,
programs, and courses and integrating ethics components within
their unit for a more holistic institutional approach to ethics.
Strategies and Teaching Styles in Ethics Courses
Ethics courses are incorporated in most university majors to improve
students’ ethical reasoning skills and ethical sensitivity. However,
most ethics educators have not been able to meet their expectations
to teach this ethical behavior and decision-making skill to university
students. Wines (2008) affirmed that one cannot teach people to be
ethical but one can enhance the students’ capability to act ethically
through a well-planned ethics course and many other interesting ac-
tivities organized by the university’s ethics center. This section dis-
cusses four essential objectives that each ethics course should meet to
maximize students’ learning outcomes.
Bowden and Smythe (2008) advised setting four core objectives
in the design of ethics courses for multidisciplinary programs:
(1) building students’ ethical sensitivity, (2) providing a broad ap-
plied teaching content covering all ethical practices, (3) adopting
innovative teaching styles and strategies to maximize the learning
impact and boost the students’ ethical analysis, and (4) enhancing
the negotiating capabilities of students by improving their oral and
written skills.
The first objective is to build students’ ethical sensitivity, which is
basically defined by most ethics instructors and achieved by using
several case problems and lectures on ethical theories. Several stud-
ies in the literature showed the impact of an ethics course by assess-
ing the reasoning capabilities of the students before and after the
course (Drake et al. 2005; Hayes et al. 1999; Canary 2007). Unfortu-
nately, most ethics instructors limit their courses material to meet this
objective only. However, to target a complete and effective teaching
method, other objectives should be taken into consideration.
The second objective is to provide a broad applied teaching con-
tent covering all ethical practices. This includes widening the con-
tent of the course to expose the students to all the ethics-related
codes and standards that they might use in their careers. In order
to achieve this objective, instructors should highlight the ethical
theories within the discipline, including the code of ethics of vari-
ous professions that are in direct contact with the students’ disci-
plines. It is mandatory to present a wide range of ethics codes to
students, helping them to easily distinguish right from wrong
decisions. After completing the ethics course, students should be
able to identify most unethical behaviors that could occur through-
out their career. However, complex and difficult ethical problems
© ASCE 04020001-2
J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001
exist, making the decision more challenging. Therefore, a minimal
knowledge of ethics theories is required to ensure harmless actions.
In such cases, students should learn to assess the harm of each
potential action and make decisions respecting the autonomy of
other parties.
The third objective is to adopt innovative teaching styles and
strategies to maximize the learning impact and boost the students’
ethical analysis. This objective emphasizes the importance of teach-
ing methods in improving students’ ethical sensitivity. Instructors
are required to design their courses taking into consideration the
class size, the use of experiential learning techniques, and the best
practices in teaching of ethical theory. In addition, the skills of the
teacher and other contributions like team teaching could play an
important role in delivering the best outcomes from ethics courses.
Several articles in the literature have argued that the teacher must be
a philosopher (Klein 1998). However, many other researchers
(Frederick 1998) believe that the instructor should be a specialist
in the discipline and in ethics. In fact, the content of ethics courses
demands that the instructor must have the basic background in the
discipline itself and must be equipped with a knowledge of ethics
theories.
Small classes are more suitable to teach ethics because they
encourage instructor to student and student to student discussions.
In this case, the instructor could also improve the students’ abilities
in communication and discussion. Large classes with more than
100 students are not suitable for this type of learning. A standard
class size should not exceed 30 students, or else small groups
should be created and monitored by teaching assistants or tutors
assigned by the main instructor.
The use of experience-based learning techniques have several
benefits on the students’ engagement and participation in the course
material. Such techniques are commonly used in teaching ethics in
the form of activities and civic engagement. However, case prob-
lems are also a form of experiential learning where small groups
discuss real environments’ scenarios and actively debate about eth-
ical decisions. In such discussions, a student who did not acquire
the ethics codes and theories will be passive. Litz (2003) suggested
a multistage solution to overcome this issue, which includes pre-
paratory preclass essays, multicolored name cards, and integrative
postclass essays. Following such techniques, experiential learning
could be an interesting incentive for students to read and under-
stand ethics standards. Naimi (2007) suggested that using simula-
tions and role playing provides realistic settings where students can
explore decision making and problem solving. Simulations are
used in most university disciplines and can also be applied in teach-
ing of ethics to show the effect of poor ethical judgement on the
career and reputation of individuals and organizations.
The fourth objective is to enhance the negotiating capabilities of
the students by improving their oral and written skills that they will
use when discussing and advocating ethical positions. To defend an
ethical point of view, students must have courage, confidence, strong
ethical background, and powerful communication skills. Ethics ac-
tivities inside and outside the curriculum, presented in-depth in the
subsequent sections, can enhance these capabilities, encourage stu-
dents to better express themselves, and advocate ethical courage. In-
side the classroom, instructors could also contribute by encouraging
dialogues in the form of total classroom discussion or a challenge
between students where each group must defend its ethical decisions.
In addition, readings, essays, term papers, and group projects (Sims
and Felton 2011) can also foster students’ confidence and their abil-
ity to identify and defend an ethical point of view.
The instructor could widen the ethical analysis of students dur-
ing debates by highlighting issues of diversity. This technique is
called role reversal and is based on asking students to present
J. Civ. Eng. Educ.
 others’ perspectives (Handelsman 2011). For example, in business
ethics courses, students must try to advocate both managers and
stakeholders. In medical ethics courses, students should also think
about the patient’s perspective as well as the doctor’s. The role-
reversal technique is also an important practice of the ethics theories
that students should acquire for their professions or other profes-
sions that they might meet during their careers. By having a clear
vision of what is considered right and what is wrong, students will
be able to better assess the outcomes of their actions and choose the
best ethical decisions, especially in very complex scenarios.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ethics Activities in the Classroom as Described in
the Syllabi
By exploring different syllabi of ethics courses at the university
level, certain common patterns can be identified. A good source
to search for syllabi on this matter is the Online Ethics Center
for Engineering and Science by the National Academy of Engineer-
ing (2020), which lists 41 ethics courses. The first noticeable varia-
tion is the use of different titles for ethics courses. By omitting
duplicates, the total number of unique titles on the Online Ethics
Center is 34, in which the word ethics appears 26 times. Among the
most commonly used title is Engineering Ethics. Many titles begin
with Ethics and. Around half of the listed courses are general ethics
courses such as Engineering Ethics; Science, Technology, and
Ethics; and Ethics: Moral Issues in the Professions, whereas the
other half consists of more specific professional ethics courses such
as Ethics of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Media Ethics,
and Ethics of the Internet.
The courses can be a seminar, a 1-credit course, a regular
3-credit course, or a purely online course. Most of the courses have
elements on ethical philosophical theories and are case-based. The
majority of courses have assignments constituting a considerable
portion of the grade (anywhere from 25% to 60%) and a research
project where students have to conduct a research study on a con-
temporary engineering case with ethical issues. All the general en-
gineering ethics courses tackle the engineering code of ethics,
especially the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
code. Because most of these courses are taken by undergraduates,
exams still make a considerable part of the grade. Most of the courses
focus on systematic and analytical thinking that should accompany
solving an ethical dilemma. Some instances of the courses also high-
light communication and presentation skills and have more than
one required presentation. Many versions of the engineering ethics
course require students to do a group research project.
The level of detail varies from one syllabus to the other, and not
all syllabi clearly list all the activities that take place in the class-
room. As per Hamad et al. (2013) there are different kinds of ac-
tivities in ethics courses other than what we could pinpoint from the
syllabi. These include challenge games and role plays, debates, and
group discussions, in addition to videos and simulation activities.
An example of a typical engineering ethics course is the Engi-
neering Ethics course offered at the American University of Beirut
(AUB), which is a required course for all engineering undergraduate
students. In addition to emphasizing communication skills, team-
work skills, and presentation skills, the course focuses on popular
case studies in engineering and stimulates students to use a system-
atic and analytical method when thinking about ethical dilemmas.
Some of the most controversial cases that foster interaction and
interest of students based on first-hand experience are the US
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Challenger
case in 1986 that is found in most textbooks in engineering ethics
© ASCE 04020001-3
J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001
(e.g., Harris et al. 2013, p. 1) and the Golden Gate Bridge case (Van
de Poel and Royakkers 2011, pp. 110–112).
The course project has evolved with time from a simple research
project, like in most of the reviewed syllabi, to a more complex
project that needs knowledge assimilation. Students are required
to work in groups to identify ethical issues in engineering and tech-
nology and to create a scenario that represent an ethical dilemma
relating to a certain technology. Hence, students are utilizing all
their acquired knowledge on engineering ethics to create an instruc-
tional video that can be utilized as a tool for prospective students in
the following semesters. After applying the video-creation group
project, a new version of the course that includes service learning
was developed, where students select a problem from their sur-
rounding community as their project topic and work throughout
the semester toward proposing a solution for this problem based
on site visits and meetings with many stakeholders, including
NGOs and professionals. In this version of the course, all assign-
ments are given in relation to the project while simultaneously
applying all the learned concepts. The goal of service learning in-
tegration throughout the course is to increase the sense of commu-
nity awareness and engagement of students so that they can better
relate to the need of being ethical professionals.
Another category of ethics activities is investigated in the next
section. The main difference between the activities inside and out-
side the classroom is their integration in the courses syllabi. It is
obvious that these activities are tailored to the courses’ syllabi
and environment; however, a wider range of activities covering
a multidisciplinary environment are described next.
Ethics Activities outside the Classroom
A thorough review of the literature suggests that the common
methods adopted in teaching ethics within the engineering curricula
are based on lectures and in-class activities such as case studies.
However, these methods are often described as abstract and have
a limited impact on the students’ ethical development (Burt et al.
2013). There is often a gap between in-class ethics instruction and
students’ ethical development.
Activities outside the classroom offer the potential of bridging
this gap by providing students with a chance of acquiring hands-
on relevant experience. Examples of these activities include in-
formal meetings outside the classroom, training simulations, and
service learning through civic engagement, community service, or
volunteerism.
An example of a successful activity outside the classroom is the
initiative launched by engineering faculty members at the United
States Coast Guard Academy (Godfrey et al. 2008). Since 2006,
instructors who teach senior design capstone courses started hold-
ing multidisciplinary engineering ethics lunches with the goal of
applying the ethical theories learned in the classroom to real-world
cases. The meetings featured small groups of students and instruc-
tors who discussed specific ethical issues pertaining to the engi-
neering profession. The discussed subjects include ethics of
global development, codes of ethics, and sustainable development.
Students were expected to have completed the reading material
relevant to the selected topic in advance of the meeting, whereas
the instructors brought to the meeting a set of talking points to
facilitate the discussions. Students were then asked to complete
an essay addressing a relevant ethical question and reflect on their
selected choices concerning an ethical dilemma. In these situa-
tions, the students are invited to identify and assess the advantages
and disadvantages of different possible courses of action and make
a decision accordingly.
J. Civ. Eng. Educ.
 The students’con whether the dilemma they are facing is real
or is part of a hypothetical exercise. The most effective mode of
conducting a realistic training is to put the student in a true situation
that involves an ethical dilemma. Obviously, creating real-life
situations is unrealistic and unethical even if it is for training pur-
poses. In such cases, some educators turned their attention to in-
teractive multimedia simulators as a source of cost-effective and
realistic training. For example, Chung and Alfred (2009) built a
simulator for engineering ethics and tested it on a set of students.
An analysis based on a pretest and posttest was carried out on two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sets of students with similar academic background and perfor-
mance, one who received a traditional noninteractive ethics training
and one who was trained using the built interactive simulators.
Differences in behavior were observed across the two groups, sug-
gesting that the interactive simulator offered a statistically signifi-
cant improvement in ethics teaching effectiveness.
Perhaps the most popular model of outside classroom ethics ac-
tivities involves service learning, which integrates academic topics
with community service and volunteer work. This type of work
provides the students with the chance to reflect on their own ethical
values and develop their abilities to identify and assess ethical is-
sues. This will not only raise their awareness of ethical issues but
will also help them enhance their cognitive ethical development.
Using data collected from 396 undergraduate students, Brown-
Liburd and Porco (2011) examined factors affecting students’
cognitive ethical development. In addition to volunteerism, other
factors found to positively affect cognitive ethical development in-
clude internship experiences, membership in honor societies, and
participation in student government. These factors help the students
move across the stages of ethical development from a self-centered
perspective of what is ethically correct to a more socially aware and
responsible interpretation.
The benefits of engaging students in ethics activities outside the
classroom are well-documented in the literature. Upon completing
such activities, the students return to the classroom with a different
attitude. For example, as reported by their instructors, the students
behave more ethically, are more engaged in classroom discussions on
ethics, and are more critical of practices within their fields. Instruc-
tors can capitalize on the situations witnessed by the students as part
of their activities outside the classroom and turn them into real-time
case studies discussed with other students in class. By capitalizing on
these real-world case studies, the instructors are able to make a con-
nection between theories of ethics and the profession, hence expos-
ing the students to issues that they may encounter upon entering the
professional world. Taking the time to discuss outside-classroom ex-
periences in class also offers the students a chance to validate their
experiences and hear various opinions (Burt et al. 2013).
Ethics Centers
Because there is such a wide variety of activities used to teach ethics
outside the classroom environment, most large universities organize
the administration of these activities through a hub responsible for
organizing and managing all ethics-related programs. Those hubs,
known as centers of ethics, are being established by colleges and
universities as an umbrella that covers all ethical activities. Ethics
centers manage the ethical courses and events and tailor them to
fit the university environment benefitting from the surrounding com-
munity and industry. The aim of these well-structured hubs is to
deliver university graduates with guided ethical thinking and high
standards of integrity and honesty (Christopher 2001). In an ethics
center, faculty members from different disciplines cooperate with
civic engagement and community service professionals in order
© ASCE 04020001-4
J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001
to deliver specialized development plans for ethics learning. Those
plans and programs are not limited to course curricula or monthly
seminars but also include sophisticated activities such as workshops,
lectures, symposia, conferences, discussions, forums, and film
screenings (Herkert 1997; Dyrud 1998; Yetmar 2008). Ethics centers
also offer fellowships and grants, manage publications and online
repositories, present awards, participate in the Ethics Bowl, offer
ethics certificates and degrees, encourage service learning and out-
reach, provide consultation services, and maintain blogs, newsletters,
and online social media activities. Having all these activities estab-
lished, an ethics center acts as a central node that engages faculty
members, students, scientists, community practitioners, industry
leaders, and policy makers in discussions and analysis of modern
ethical dilemmas. Such a multidisciplinary platform helps students
enhance their awareness of contemporary moral issues and strength-
ens the university’s commitment to provide an ethical person
education.
This section presents the results of a study conducted on the
activities done by 60 centers of ethics in different colleges and uni-
versities around the globe. More than 50 centers of the review serve
universities in the United States, and other centers serve universities
in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Hong Kong. The
activities described subsequently help the ethics center designers to
embed new ideas in their plans and attract students who wish to
enhance their ethical profiles.
Lectures, Conferences, Workshops, and Awards
A common role of ethics centers is to organize lectures, conferences,
and workshops to support discussions between students and profes-
sional institutions. These events bring together leading academics,
practitioners, businesspeople, and donors to highlight emerging ideas
and opportunities for practicing ethics. The majority of ethics centers
host lectures presented by distinguished speakers chosen among
professionals and well-known individuals in the industry. Ethics cen-
ters in universities like Princeton, Duke, University of Kansas, and
St. Petersburg College regularly organize lecture series that aim to
discuss ethical issues and their projections in student’s careers.
Several centers also organize seminars to engage students in dis-
cussions with professionals about modern ethical issues. Indiana
University and Georgia State University offer well reputed semi-
nars featuring specialized ethical issues. Another way to combine
theoretical and practical analysis of ethical decisions is by engaging
students in advanced workshops. Ethics centers at Stanford Univer-
sity, Fordham University, and Ohio University attract universal re-
searchers, educators, and students through annual international
workshops that promote ethics in the university. Bigger events like
conferences and symposia addressing ethical issues in research and
other fields are also being organized by ethics centers at Arizona
State University and the University of North Carolina.
Other universities gather students in forums hosted by the ethics
centers, where students can exchange ideas on ethical decisions. In
those forums, participants argue about an ethical decision in a well-
structured dialog and debate program (Davis 2006). Such discus-
sion between students can be supervised by guest speakers to guide
the debate and offer comprehensive conclusions. Forums could
start with a film screening followed by a discussion on the relevant
themes and ethical issues highlighted by the movie.
During these events, ethics centers attract students, faculty, and
community members by offering awards. These awards could be
offered for student essay contests, community service projects,
or distinguished class works. Winning students are awarded with
monetary prizes, grants for fellowships, or publications of their
essays in recognized ethics journals. Awards are also offered to
J. Civ. Eng. Educ.
 distinguish community practitioners for their impact in a particular
field of ethical practice.
Ethics Bowl
A global event that gathers many centers of ethics in an academic
competition focusing on enhancing the educational experience of
students while they have fun is known as the Ethics Bowl (Herkert
2011). Teams from the United States and Canada compete in sev-
eral ethical subjects and answer questions related to ethical cases
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and judgements on various disciplines. Such international events
bring together all ethics professionals and open a wider cooperation
among ethics centers to enhance and develop ethics programs and
activities in universities.
Online Resource Environment
Several ethics centers provide an online resource environment that
offers a large database of ethics literature. On these centers’ web-
sites, students can enter a discussion group to share their opinion
about a moral cause, search for educational material and tutorials,
and complete certificate courses on Moodle. Some ethics centers,
namely the Berkley Office of Ethics and the Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, also offer a conflict resolution portal
that provides solutions for conflict resolution opportunities and
responsibilities, and offers assistance for students, graduate stu-
dents, faculty, and staff. In such websites, mainly two approaches
for conflict assistance are offered: (1) an anonymous approach
where the participant can submit questions by secure email to a
professional ethicist who will be in charge of the forum; and
(2) a public approach where a discussion board is available for each
conflict, and ethicists will handle the different threads. In the latter
scenario, discussions are available to all website viewers.
Outreach Programs and Community Service
To engage undergraduate students in practicing ethical education,
many ethics centers have established an outreach program with
high schools or rehabilitation centers, where university students
will be tutoring or lecturing about ethics and other related subjects.
A valuable example is applied by Stanford University to help
Hope House rehabilitation center residents through engagement
in college-level courses as part of their recovery from drugs and
alcohol. Another outreach program is being applied by the Univer-
sity of Illinois to encourage collaboration between their undergrad-
uates and local high school students. Under faculty members’
guidance, university students lead workshops on key ethical issues
facing high school students. The program is conducted annually
during the fall and spring semesters, in coordination with the high
school schedule. Six sessions are offered on practical approaches to
ethical consequences and rules. The curriculum is tailored to high
school students and inspired from the university’s core ethics
courses. Upon the completion of these sessions, the high school
students will be offered a certificate of completion to be used as
part of their college admission package.
Ethics Certificate
To promote ethical decisions toward challenges facing university
students before and after graduation, universities offer ethics cer-
tificates. The ethics certificate program provides students with the
skills and confidence to evaluate and create solutions for ethical
dilemmas. Several ethics certificates are offered in the US and
Europe to highlight the ethical standards and knowledge of stu-
dents. One example is applied at Duke University, where an ethics
© ASCE 04020001-5
J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001
certificate is designed for all students regardless of their major.
Students are required to choose one of three main tracks offered
by this program, which are bioethics, science, and society, inter-
national law and human rights, and markets and professions. The
required curriculum consists of six courses, but courses could be
replaced by a faculty mentored independent research project and/
or a community-based fieldwork. The university assessed this
program by a mix of student surveys and interviews that show
the advantages of such an experience. Another program is offered
at the University of Maryland, namely an online 12-credit graduate
certificate program. The goal of the selected courses is to provide
students with knowledge of the ethical and regulatory aspects of
human related research and to offer them the ability to analyze
ethical issues and challenges.
In other universities, such as Texas State University and Univer-
sity of Colorado Denver, ethics certificates are offered to individ-
uals outside the university, as well as to undergraduate or graduate
students. The certificate requirements consist of a minimum 12
credit hours corresponding to four ethics-related courses offered
by the department. A smaller program is offered in New York Uni-
versity by delivering ethics certificates for business students upon
the completion of a 1-week intensive course. The offered hands-on
program aims to improve the students’ expertise on a variety of
corporate compliance and ethical topics.
Incentives for Students to Study Ethics
Ethics activities designed and tailored by ethics centers require the
participation of interested students. However, university students
are usually busy with their core courses in their major area of stud-
ies. This section describes the main incentives that could be used to
attract students from multiple disciplines to become engaged in
ethics activities offered by their universities. The section starts by
discussing employers’ assessments of ethics in the job recruitment
process, which is of high concern for undergraduate students.
Ethics in Recruitment
According to the Compliance Certification Board, which has
offered international ethics certifications since 1999 (Compliance
Certification Board 2014), ethics certificate holders have more
credibility than their peers when applying to prestigious positions.
In addition, such programs encourage ethics certificate holders
to continue their personal and professional growth in the practice
of compliance and ethics, which is of great importance to their
organizations.
This perspective is not always appreciated by students whose
primary concern is often to enrich their curriculum vitae (CV)
by adding professional activities that can attract employers rather
than adding an ethics certificate. However, when an employer
checks a list of candidates applying for a job, the employer is usu-
ally concerned about the ethical behavior, as well as job skills and
expertise of the candidates. For this reason, many interview strat-
egies are adopted by employers to reveal the ethical side of a can-
didate by asking questions about ethical standards (Dezube 2015).
A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a design and building company
reported to Coy (2015) that he is following an interview strategy
that starts with a warm, getting-to-know-you conversation followed
by his favorite question: “If we ever got into a bind with a client,
would you be willing to tell a little white lie to help us out?” The
CEO affirmed that he will reject the job application in case of a
positive answer.
The biggest concern of the employers is that a new employee
with high professional skills but with low ethical standards can
J. Civ. Eng. Educ.
 significantly destroy an organization’s culture and reputation. In-
cluding ethics as an essential part of the job recruitment process
is mandatory nowadays given the problems an unethical person
can cause. Statistics have shown the tremendous damage of uneth-
ical employees on the industry. The United States Chamber of
Commerce revealed that more than a third of business failures
per year are caused by employees’ crimes (Walczyk et al. 2005).
Cialdini et al. (2012) reported that a former chairman of an inter-
national manufacturing company pointed out that it takes years to
build a reputation for integrity that can be lost overnight. Unfortu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nately, once an organization loses its reputation for any ethical
behavior, the effect can be permanent.
Employers can use various techniques in their recruitment pro-
cess such as surveys, reference checks, and background checks.
These tools are adopted nowadays by one-third of US companies
as part of the psychological testing in the job selection process
(Krohe 2006). Collins’s (2006) detailed study revealed the impor-
tance of the mainly used testing techniques including integrity tests,
personality tests, ethical reasoning level tests, and values orienta-
tion for the interviewing companies. Moreover, many companies
are explicitly asking for the ethical credibility of their applicants.
This can be verified by monitoring the occurrence of the word
ethics in the job descriptions of new position openings. Many
job descriptions focus on work ethic, personal integrity and strong
ethical standards, and other personal characteristics. Thus, appli-
cants should not only promote their skills, experience, and quali-
fications when writing a cover letter, but they should also reveal a
high standard of values and ethics.
In summary, the importance of revealing the ethical standards of
the candidates is of great importance for modern recruiters. Under-
graduate students can improve their CVs by adding their acquired
ethical experiences. An ethics certificate delivered by the univer-
sity’s center of ethics is the most convenient way to show the ethical
standards of the applicants and their professionalism. Besides
advantages on the human level, undergraduate students will be mo-
tivated to pursue a small ethics program to enrich their profiles and
have better chances of recruitment. Also, it has been mentioned in
several articles and papers that the ethical behavior of students dur-
ing their undergraduate years has a direct projection on their ethical
decisions in their professional lives. The next subsection empha-
sizes this projection and shows the importance of building a strong
ethical background during undergraduate studies.
Ethics Continuity from University to Work
Many researchers have tried to assess university students’ cheating
behaviors and proposed various solutions (Ameen et al. 1996;
Ashworth et al. 1997). Statistics on cheating and other unethical
decisions made by students in universities (Cizek 2003) are alerting
Appendix. Ethics Centers in International Universities
Private or
Ethics center University public Country
Olsson Center for University of Virginia Public United States
Applied Ethics Darden School of
Business
Kennedy Institute for Georgetown University Private United States
Ethics
Poynter Center for the Indiana University Public United States
Study of Ethics and Bloomington
American Institutions
© ASCE 04020001-6
J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001
professional organization leaders and the whole community about
the quality of the next generation of employees. For example, after
graduating from a medical school with a long history of dishonesty,
it is easy to predict that the graduated nurse or medical doctor will
behave unethically because past behavior predicts future actions.
Of course, no one wants a cheating doctor or nurse to take care
of them. The same reasoning could be applied to all other university
disciplines.
Sierles and Hendrickx (1980) explained that there is a con-
tinuum from cheating in universities to cheating in the workplace.
The same unethical behavior of medical school students will be
projected when working in patient care. Thus, cheating in univer-
sities is an early warning of potential engagement in unethical prac-
tices in the professional career.
Sims (1993) investigated the relation between the range and se-
verity of unethical students’ behavior during undergraduate studies
and the range and severity of unethical decisions during the pro-
fessional career. Statistics and assessments were conducted on
60 Master of Business Administration students. Findings revealed
that “subjects who admitted to having engaged in a wide range of
academic dishonesty also admitted to a wide range of work-related
dishonesty. Additionally, those subjects who engaged in behaviors
considered severely dishonest in college also engaged in behaviors
considered severely dishonest at work.”
Consequently, enhancing the ethical behavior of undergraduate
students is of great importance for the students’ careers as well as
for the professional institutions hiring these students and conse-
quently on the community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, effective teaching of ethics is an essential goal of
universities worldwide and requires thorough planning of activities
to be delivered both within traditional classroom settings and be-
yond the classroom. Ethics centers are being introduced as a hub for
managing all these activities by involving all faculties in order for
students to reach the globally required ethical standards. By equip-
ping university students with ethical perceptions through various
activities and certificates, ethics centers offer graduating students
the chance to demonstrate the ability to start their professional lives
by responding to immoral situations with ethical decisions. Future
work that builds on what is presented in this paper could involve
assessment of the efficiency of the suggested practical strategies
of ethics teaching. Feedback collected from university students,
faculty members, managers, and recruiters would emphasize the
importance of designing a complete framework managing diverse
activities to apply and teach ethics at universities.
Budget details Year of foundation of
(endowments or funds) ethics center Enrollment
Olsson Foundation and 1968 21,000
other endowments
Several funders 1971 18,000
Endowment, Neylson 1972 49,000
Poynter
J. Civ. Eng. Educ.
 Appendix. (Continued.)
Private or Budget details Year of foundation of
Ethics center University public Country (endowments or funds) ethics center Enrollment
Center for the Study of Illinois Institute of Private United States University funds and 1976 8,000
Ethics in the Professions Technology externally funded projects
Center for Business Bentley University Private United States University funds 1976 5,000
Ethics
Centre of Medical Law King’s College London, Public United Kingdom University and 1978 28,000
and Ethics The Dickson Poon international funds
School of Law
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ethics Institute Dartmouth College Private United States University funds 1982 6,000
Center for the Study of Utah Valley University Public United States National Endowment of 1983 32,000
Ethics the Humanities (NEH)
Applied Ethics Institute St. Petersburg College Public Russia University funds 1985 32,000
Center for the Study of Western Michigan Public United States University funds 1985 24,000
Ethics in Society University
Edmond J. Safra Center Harvard University Private United States Endowment from 1986 21,000
for Ethics Edmond Safra
McCoy Family Center Stanford University Private United States University fund; 1986 16,000
for Ethics in Society endowment from McCoy
family in 2008
Markkula Center for Santa Carla University Private United States Endowment, Markkula 1986 9,000
Applied Ethics
Hoffberger Center for University of Baltimore Public United States Endowment from 1987 6,000
Professional Ethics Hoffberger
Centre de Recherches Université Libre de Private Belgium University fund 1987 24,000
Interdisciplinaires en Bruxelles
Bioéthique
Center for Ethics Oregon Health & Public United States Endowments with several 1989 4,000
Science University funders
(OHSU)
Institute for Applied and Ohio University Public United States University funds 1989 29,000
Professional Ethics
Emory Center for Ethics Emory University Private Unites States University fund, in 1999 1990 15,000
endowment of USD
2 million to establish a
program
University Center for Princeton University Private United States University funds 1990 8,000
Human Values
International Center for The University of Kansas Public United States University funds 1991 28,000
Ethics in Business
International Centre for University of Tübingen Public Germany University fund 1991 29,000
Ethics in the Sciences
and Humanities
Center for Applied Hong Kong Baptist Public Hong Kong University funds 1992 11,000
Ethics University
Plunkett Centre for Australian Catholic Public Australia University funds 1992 32,000
Ethics University and St.
Vincent’s Hospital in
Sydney
Center for Ethics and Georgia State Robinson Public United States Supported by many 1993 33,000
Corporate Responsibility College of Business corporations and firms
W. Maurice Young The University of British Public Canada Endowment, W. Maurice 1993 60,000
Centre for Applied Columbia Young
Ethics
Dr. James Dale Ethics Youngstown State Public United States University funds 1993 15,000
Center University
Centre for Professional University of Central Public United Kingdom University fund 1993 27,000
Ethics Lancashire
Kenan Institute for Duke University Private Unites States Endowment from William 1995 31,000
Ethics at Duke Kennan, USD 10 million
University in 1999 and USD
20 million in 2001
Center for Professional University of North Public United States University funds 1995 26,000
and Applied Ethics Carolina at Charlotte
Cary M. Maguire Center Southern Methodist Private United States Endowment, Carry M. 1995 11,000
for Ethics and Public University Maguire
Responsibility

© ASCE 04020001-7 J. Civ. Eng. Educ.

J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001

 Appendix. (Continued.)
Private or Budget details Year of foundation of
Ethics center University public Country (endowments or funds) ethics center Enrollment
Maureen and Mike University of Montana Public United States Endowment, Maureen 1996 13,000
Mansfield Center Ethics and Mike Mansfield
and Public Affairs Foundation
Program
Center for Ethics and University of Miami Private United States University funds 1996 17,000
Public Service School of Law
Carol and Lawrence University of Private United States Endowment, Carol and 1997 25,000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Zicklin Center for Pennsylvania Lawrence Zicklin

Business Ethics
Research
Kegley Institute of Ethics California State Public United States Endowment, Kegley 1997 9,000
University Bakersfield Family and other funds
International Center for Brandeis University Private United States University funds 1998 6,000
Ethics, Justice, and
Public Life
Lincoln Center for Arizona State University Public United States Endowment, Lincoln 1998 83,000
Applied Ethics College of Liberal Arts Family
and Sciences
Stockdale Center for US Naval Academy — United States — 1998 4,500
Ethical Leadership
Northern Plains Ethics North Dakota State Public United States University funds 1998 15,000
Institute University
Notre Dame Center for University of Notre Private United States University fund 1999 12,000
Ethics and Culture Dame
Center for Ethics Fordham University Private United States University fund 1999 15,000
Education
Center for Ethics and Carnegie Mellon Private United States University and 2000 13,000
Policy University Department international funds
of Philosophy
Centre for Applied Charles Sturt University Public Australia University funds 2000 24,000/43,000
Philosophy and Public and University of
Ethics Melbourne
Yale Interdisciplinary Yale University Private United States Funding from several 2001 12,000
Center for Bioethics foundations and donors
Centre for the Study of University of Public United Kingdom University funds 2001 29,000
Global Ethics Birmingham Department
of Philosophy
Institute for Ethics University of New Public United States University funds 2002 27,000
Mexico School of
Medicine
Centre for Professional Keele University School Public United Kingdom University fund 2002 10,000
Ethics at Keele of Law
Association for Practical Indiana University Public United States University funds 2003 110,000
and Professional Ethics
Oxford Uehiro Centre for University of Oxford Public United Kingdom Funds from Uehiro 2003 26,000
Practical Ethics Department of Foundation on Ethics and
Philosophy Education of Japan
The Elizabeth B. and University of Florida Public United States Endowment, Poe family 2004 52,000
William F. Poe, Sr. Warrington College of
Center for Business Business
Ethics Education and
Research
Center for Ethics in University of California — United States University funds 2004 —
Science and Technology San Diego, the Reuben
H. Fleet Science Center,
San Diego State
University, and the
University of San Diego
Jackson Family Center Coastal Carolina Public United States Endowment, Jackson 2004 10,000
for Ethics and Values University Family
Parr Center for Ethics University of North Public United States Endowment, Parr Family 2004 29,000
Carolina at Chapel Hill Foundation
German Reference North Rhine- Public Germany Grant from Federal 2004 —
Centre for Ethics in the Westphalian Academy of Ministry for Education
Life Sciences Sciences, Humanities and Research
and the Arts

© ASCE 04020001-8 J. Civ. Eng. Educ.

J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001

 Appendix. (Continued.)
Private or Budget details Year of foundation of
Ethics center University public Country (endowments or funds) ethics center Enrollment
Center for Ethics and University of Alabama Public United States Endowment from Miss 2005 36,000
Social Responsibility at Smith
the University of
Alabama
Center on Ethics San José State University Public United States Endowment, Mr. Olivieri 2005 33,000
and Mr. Villeggante
Center for Marian University Private United States Endowment, Samler 2005 3,000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Organizational Ethics Family

Inter-Disciplinary Ethics University of Leeds Public United Kingdom Grant from Higher 2005 32,000
Applied Centre Education Funding
Council for England
Centre européen University of Strasbourg Public France University and national 2005 46,000
d’enseignement et de Faculty of Medicine funds
recherche en éthique
Center for Professional College of Business at Public United States Funding from Deloitte 2006 4,000
Responsibility in Illinois Foundation and the US
Business and Society District court of Illinois
Winston Center for Boston College Private United States Endowment, Bob and 2006 14,000
Leadership and Ethics Judy Winston
Centre for Business Meiji University Private Japan University funds 2006 33,000
Information Ethics
Janet Prindle Institute for Depauw University Private United States Endowment, Janet Prindle 2007 2,500
Ethics
Centre for Ethics and University College Public England University fund 2009 30,000
Law London (UCL)
National Center for University of Illinois at Public United States Major funder: National 2010 44,000
Professional and Urbana-Champaign Science Foundation
Research Ethics
(NCPRE)
Texas Tech University Texas Tech University Public United States University funds 2010 36,000
Ethics Center
Center for Ethics and Loyola Marymount Private United States University funds 2010 9,000
Business University
Roger Mudd Center for Washington and Lee Private United States Endowment, Roger Mudd 2010 2,500
Ethics University
Centre for Social Ethics University of Manchester Public United Kingdom University fund 2010 38,000
and Policy
Center for Applied Palm Beach State Public United States University funds 2011 49,000
Ethics College
Centre for Ethics in University of Bristol Public United Kingdom University fund 2011 23,000
Medicine
Rutland Institute for Clemson University Public United States Endowment, Rutland 2012 23,000
Ethics
Centre on Values and Carleton University Public Canada University funds 2013 28,000
Ethics (COVE)

Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Ms. Hiba
Itani and Ms. Dania Salem in reviewing this manuscript.
References
Ameen, E., D. M. Guffey, and J. J. McMillan. 1996. “Accounting students’
perceptions of questionable academic practices and factors affecting
their propensity to cheat.” Accounting Educ. 5 (3): 191–205. https://doi
.org/10.1080/09639289600000020.
Ashworth, P., P. Bannister, P. Thorne, and Students on the Qualitative Re-
search Methods Course Unit. 1997. “Guilty in whose eyes? University
students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and
assessment.” Stud. Higher Educ. 22 (2): 187–203. https://doi.org/10
.1080/03075079712331381034.
Bowden, P., and V. Smythe. 2008. “Theories on teaching & training in
ethics.” EJBO-Electron. J. Bus. Ethics Organ. Stud. 13 (2): 19–26.
Brown-Liburd, H. L., and B. M. Porco. 2011. “It’s what’s outside that
counts: Do extracurricular experiences affect the cognitive moral devel-
opment of undergraduate accounting students?” Issues Accounting
Educ. Am. Accounting Assoc. 26 (2): 439–454. https://doi.org/10.2308
/iace-10022.
Burt, B. A., D. D. Carpenter, M. A. Holsapple, C. J. Finelli, R. M.
Bielby, J. A. Sutkus, and T. S. Harding. 2013. “Out-of-classroom
experiences: Bridging the disconnect between the classroom, the engi-
neering workforce, and ethical development.” Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29 (3):
714–725.

© ASCE 04020001-9 J. Civ. Eng. Educ.

J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001

 Canary, H. 2007. “Teaching ethics in communication courses: An investigation
of instructional methods, course foci, and student outcomes.” Commun.
Educ. 56 (2): 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601113660.
Christopher, M. 2001. “Role of ethics committees, ethics networks, and
ethics centers in improving end-of-life care.” Pain Med. 2 (2):
162–168. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-4637.2001.002002162.x.
Chung, C. A., and M. Alfred. 2009. “Design, development, and evaluation
of an interactive simulator for engineering ethics education (SEEE).”
Sci. Eng. Ethics 15 (2): 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008
-9109-y.
Cialdini, R. B., P. K. Petrova, N. J. Goldstein, and Leading Your Team.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 02/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2012. “The hidden costs of organizational dishonesty.” MIT Sloan
Manage. Rev. 45 (3): 67–74.
Cizek, G. J. 2003. Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promot-
ing integrity in assessment. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Colby, A., and W. M. Sullivan. 2008. “Ethics teaching in undergraduate
engineering education.” J. Eng. Educ. 97 (3): 327–338. https://doi
.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00982.x.
Collins, D. 2006. “Determining a job candidate’s ethics profile: Integrity,
personality, and moral reasoning level tests.” In Doing well and good:
The human face of the new capitalism. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Compliance Certification Board. 2014. “Compliance certification.” Ac-
cessed December 12, 2015. http://www.compliancecertification.org/.
Coy, C. 2015. “Hiring for ethics and integrity: 4 tactics that work.”
Accessed December 12, 2015. https://www.cornerstoneondemand.com
/blog/hiring-ethics-and-integrity-4-tactics-work#.VnADBErRKko.
Davis, M. 2006. “IIT’s workshops for integrating ethics into technical
courses: Some lessons learned.” Teach. Ethics 6 (2): 29–42. https://doi
.org/10.5840/tej2006623.
Dezube, D. 2015. “How to interview to uncover a candidate’s ethical stan-
dards.” Accessed December 12, 2015. http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr
-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/interviewing-candidates/interview
-questions-to-ask-candidates.aspx.
Drake, M. J., P. M. Griffin, R. Kirkman, and J. L. Swann. 2005. “Engineer-
ing ethical curricula: Assessment and comparison of two approaches.”
J. Eng. Educ. 94 (2): 223. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005
.tb00843.x.
Dyrud, M. A.1998. “Ethics education for the third millennium.” Age
3 (264): 1–10.
Fox, E., R. M. Arnold, and B. Brody. 1995. “Medical ethics education:
Past, present, and future.” Acad. Med. 70 (9): 761–768.
Frederick, W. C. 1998. “One voice? Or many? A response to Ellen Klein.”
Bus. Ethics Q. 8 (03): 575–579. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857439.
Gautschi, F. H., III, and T. M. Jones. 1998. “Enhancing the ability of busi-
ness students to recognize ethical issues: An empirical assessment of the
effectiveness of a course in business ethics.” J. Bus. Ethics 17 (2):
205–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005740505208.
Godfrey, D., T. Taylor, C. Fleischmann, and D. Pickles. 2008. “Teaching
ethics in a multidisciplinary environment.” Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. 13 (1):
1161–1673.
Hamad, J. A., M. Hasanain, M. Abdulwahed, and R. Al-Ammari. 2013.
“Ethics in engineering education: A literature review.” In Proc., IEEE
in Frontiers in Education Conf., 1554–1560. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Handelsman, M. 2011. “5 ways to teach ethics.” Accessed April 27, 2017.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl.
Harris, C. E., Jr., E. Charles, M. S. Pritchard, M. J. Rabins, R. James, and
E. Englehardt. 2013. Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Harris, C. E., M. Davis, M. S. Pritchard, and M. J. Rabins. 1996. “Engineer-
ing ethics: What? Why? How? And when?” J. Eng. Educ. 85 (2):
93–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1996.tb00216.x.
Hayes, R. P., A. Stoudemire, K. Kinlaw, M. L. Dell, and A. Loomis. 1999.
“Qualitative outcome assessment of a medical ethics program for clini-
cal clerkships: A pilot study.” Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 21 (4): 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-8343(99)00021-3.
Herkert, J. R. 1997. “Making connections: Engineering ethics on the world
wide web.” IEEE Trans. Educ. 40 (4): 7. https://doi.org/10.1109/13
.759672.
© ASCE 04020001-10
J. Civ. Eng. Educ., 2020, 146(2): 04020001
Herkert, J. R. 2011. “The Lincoln Teaching Fellows Program at the ASU
Polytechnic campus.” Teach. Ethics 11 (2): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5840
/tej20111121.
Keefer, M., and M. Davis. 2012. “Curricular design and assessment in pro-
fessional ethics education.” Teach. Ethics 13 (1): 81–90. https://doi.org
/10.5840/tej201213132.
Klein, E. R. 1998. “The one necessary condition for a successful business
ethics course: The teacher must be a philosopher.” Bus. Ethics Q. 8 (03):
561–574. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857438.
Krohe, J. 2006. “Are workplace tests worth taking?” Across Board 43 (4):
16–23.
Litz, R. A. 2003. “Red light, green light and other ideas for class
participation-intensive courses: Method and implications for business
ethics education.” Teach. Bus. Ethics 7 (4): 365–378. https://doi.org/10
.1023/B:TEBE.0000005710.76306.1d.
Naimi, L. 2007. “Strategies for teaching research ethics in business, man-
agement and organisational studies.” Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods
5 (1): 26–39.
National Academy of Engineering. 2020. “Online ethics center for engi-
neering and science.” Accessed January 9, 2020. www.onlineethics
.org.
Pellegrino, E. D., D. Edmund, R. J. Hart, S. R. Henderson, S. E. Loeb,
and G. Edwards. 1985. “Relevance and utility of courses in
medical ethics.” JAMA 253 (1): 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama
.1985.03350250057022.
Safatly, L., H. Itani, A. El-Hajj, and D. Salem. 2017. “Ethics centers’
activities and role in promoting ethics in universities.” Ethics Educ.
12 (2): 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2017.1286787.
Self, D. J., F. D. Wolinsky, and D. C. Baldwin Jr. 1989. “The effect of
teaching medical ethics on medical students’ moral reasoning.” Acad.
Med. 64 (12): 755–759. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198912000
-00014.
Sierles, F., and I. Hendrickx. 1980. “Cheating in medical school.” Acad.
Med. 55 (2): 124–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198002000
-00006.
Sims, R. L. 1993. “The relationship between academic dishonesty and un-
ethical business practices.” J. Educ. Bus. 68 (4): 207–211. https://doi
.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117614.
Sims, R. R., and E. L. Felton Jr. 2011. “Successfully teaching ethics for
effective learning.” Coll. Teach. Methods Styles J. 1 (3): 31–48.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v1i3.5237.
Sims, R. R., and S. J. Sims. 1991. “Increasing applied business ethics
courses in business school curricula.” J. Bus. Ethics 10 (3): 211–219.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383158.
Soule, E. 2005. Embedding ethics in business and higher education: From
leadership to management imperative. Washington, DC: Business-
Higher Education Forum.
Stephan, K. D. 2001. “Is engineering ethics optional?” Technol. Soc. Mag.
20 (4): 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/44.974502.
Thomas, J. A. 2011. “Teaching applied ethics in fire & emergency medical
services.” Teach. Ethics 11 (2): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.5840
/tej20111122.
Van de Poel, I., and L. Royakkers. 2011. Ethics, technology, and engineer-
ing: An introduction. New York: Wiley.
Walczyk, J. J., J. Jeffrey, J. P. Schwartz, R. Clifton, B. Adams, M. I. N. Wei,
and P. Zha. 2005. “Lying person-to-person about life events: A cogni-
tive framework for lie detection.” Personnel Psychol. 58 (1): 141–170.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00484.x.
Warnick, B. R., and S. K. Silverman. 2011. “A framework for professional
ethics courses in teacher education.” J. Teach. Educ. 62 (3): 273–285.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110398002.
Wines, W. A. 2008. “Seven pillars of business ethics: Toward a compre-
hensive framework.” J. Bus. Ethics 79 (4): 483–499. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10551-007-9411-7.
Yetmar, S. A. 2008. “Business ethics resources on the internet.” J. Bus.
Ethics 80 (2): 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9420-6.
J. Civ. Eng. Educ.