Expanding Ethical Discourse in Digital Engineering Education: Addressing Instrumentalism and Sociotechnical Relations in a Globalized Landscape

• In Event: Artificial intellegence in education: impacts, challenges, and perspectives across global contexts

Proposal

Today’s educators are confronted by the ubiquity of digital technology and the technogification of educational processes, a shift both technical and ethical in nature. Schuetze et al. (2024) distinguish between "digitalization" (the process of integrating digital technologies into practices) and "digitization" (the conversion of information into digital form), arguing that the former has profound implications for how systems are understood. Responding to the call to examine digitalization's impact on education, this paper shifts the focus to the emerging field of digital engineering education. Building on the foundational work by Tao et al. (2024)in their inaugural issue of "Digital Engineering," we adopt the term "digital engineering" to discuss the educational programming of fields such as computing, data analytics, and information sciences, examining their role in shaping the engineers who bring technical and societal transformations through digitalization. By framing digital engineering, we situate the ethical debates within the broader, established context of engineering ethics education, highlighting how digitalization amplifies technical and societal dimensions of engineering.
This paper critiques the current landscape of digital engineering education by examining its intersection with instrumentalism, internationalization (Canadian Edugration), and depoliticization. The convergence of these factors highlights the challenges inherent in the formation of digital engineering programs and reveals their potential to perpetuate existing systems and reinforce the status quo. By framing these issues through the philosophical lens of values in science and engineering ethics education, we revisit the political dimensions underlying scientific inquiry and educational practices, and propose an expanded ethical discourse that engages with "practising diversity", critical reflexivity, and sociotechnical awareness.

Methodology
As scholar-practitioners with expertise in engineering education and the philosophy of science, our work with international students led to the application of the Accidental Ethnography (AccE) framework (Levitan et al., 2020). Following Brunner and Tao (2024), who used AccE to explore AI in Canadian international student migration governance, we use this reflexive method to analyze “unsettling moments” in our professional experiences. AccE’s six practices—Initiation, Reflection, Re-examination of Literature, Data Collection, Coding, and Recursive Consultations—allow us to integrate real-world insights with theoretical reflection and peer dialogue.

Instrumentalism, Internationalization, and Depoliticization of Digital Engineering Education
Digital engineering education is increasingly shaped by instrumentalism, where education is framed primarily as a tool for economic development. In the Canadian context, education-immigration policies—referred to as "Edugration”, link certain STEM programs to pathways for permanent residency and target immigrant employment outcomes to meet labor market demands. International students on this ‘edugration’ pathway are primarily motivated by employability over criticality, reducing them to economic utility and reinforcing stereotypes that they lack creativity or leadership.
Simultaneously, the depoliticization of digital engineering education frames the discipline as neutral and solely technical, excluding political and cultural considerations (Cech & Sherick, 2015). This aligns with the longstanding ideal that scientific knowledge is free from personal values (Douglas, 2009). Digital engineering’s perception as objective and apolitical makes it appealing to international degree pursuers as a universal asset transferable across borders.
Instrumentalism has merged depoliticization and internationalization of digital engineering education. Nussbaum (2009) warns that education geared toward economic enrichment risks producing docile technicians serving elite interests, with science’s supposed neutrality masking its political implications. This process shapes international students as economic actors, minimizing their potential for critical societal engagement, further intensified by Edugration.

Value Exploration in Digital Engineering
Contrary to the belief that science and engineering are value-free, digitalization reveals and amplifies existing values (Schuetze et al., 2024). Although engineering is inherently social, our research shows a persistent neglect of its ethical dimensions, with issues such as AI, data privacy, and the digital divide overshadowed by a focus on technical solutions. Adding epistemic exclusion will profoundly impact how digital technologies are developed and deployed globally, as the world becomes increasingly "programmed" through these technologies. The Eurocentric discourse in STEM programs marginalizes diverse perspectives and ways of knowing, reinforcing a narrow, Western-centric view of "good science" and limiting inclusive technological progress (Figueirôa, 2023; Quijano, 2000). Addressing this requires an educational shift to recognize the embedded morals, values, and politics in engineering.

Expanding Engineering Ethics Education Framework
Engineering ethics education has traditionally been a crucial component of regulated fields such as civil and mechanical engineering, where ethical standards are enforced through professional bodies like Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (EGBC), Canada. However, the rise of digital engineering (e.g., software development, AI, and data engineering) is still largely unregulated with few legal or professional requirements for ethics training, contributing to gaps in digital engineering ethics education.
While there is an increasing call for integrating ethics modules in engineering curricula, the fragmented state of engineering ethics education lacks both theoretical depth and practical consistency. Martin and Colon (2023) describe how ethics education varies greatly across institutions, but predominantly prioritizing practical concerns over theoretical foundations. Hess and Fore (2018) point out the lack of empirical consensus on best practices, leading to inconsistent implementation across programs. Additionally, Ferdman and Ratti (2024) propose a tripartite ethics framework that divides ethics education into ethical, moral, and political dimensions, yet note that learning outcomes are often ambiguous with a frequent mix-up between curricula focusing on individual ethics versus those tackling societal-level ethics. Ratti & Stapleford’s (2021) virtue ethics framework supports moving beyond professional codes but integrating ethical reasoning as integral to engineering development in tandem with technical skills.
This paper argues for an expanded approach to ethics education that goes beyond regulatory compliance and encourages exploration of systemic sociotechnical relations in digital engineering. Initiatives like the Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace project exemplifies embracing diverse voices to promote individual reflexivity and dialogues around the societal impacts of technology (Haverkamp, 2021). Importantly, engineering ethics education should equip students not only to navigate but also to critically examine and reshape these landscapes. Such an approach is vital in digital engineering, where ethical concerns are abstract and wide-reaching, requiring educator to practice fostering critical reflexivity, sociotechnical literacy, and the meaningful inclusion of diverse lived experiences.

Authors

• Siyi Cheng, The University of British Columbia

• Jonathan Lopez