Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28401507›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018

Improving Student Engagement in the Study of Professional Ethics: Concepts and an Example in Cyber Security.

John D Bustard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

John D BustardSchool of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen's University, Belfast, BT9 5AH, UK. j.bustard@qub.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In spite of the acknowledged importance of professional ethics, technical students often show little enthusiasm for studying the subject. This paper considers how such engagement might be improved. Four guiding principles for promoting engagement are identified: (1) aligning teaching content with student interests; (2) taking a pragmatic rather than a philosophical approach to issue resolution; (3) addressing the full complexity of real-world case studies; and (4) covering content in a way that students find entertaining. The use of these principles is then discussed with respect to the specific experience of developing and presenting a master's module in Ethical and Legal Issues in Cyber Security at Queens University Belfast. One significant aspect of the resulting design is that it encourages students to see ethical issues in systemic terms rather than from an individual perspective, with issues emerging from a conflict between different groups with different vested interests. Case studies are used to examine how personal and business priorities create conflicts that can lead to negative press, fines and punitive legal action. The module explores the reasons why organisations may be unaware of the risks associated with their actions and how an inappropriate response to an ethical issue can significantly aggravate a situation. The module has been delivered in three successive years since 2014 and been well received on each occasion. The paper describes the design of the module and the experience of delivering it, concluding with a discussion of the effectiveness of the approach.

Indexed as

CurriculumLearningProblem SolvingStudentsComputer SecurityConflict of InterestEthics, ProfessionalHumansInformation ScienceIrelandMoralsOrganizationsResearchUniversitiesCase studiesCurriculum designCyber securityEthicsPsychology

Identifiers

PMID28401507
PMCPMC5876413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.