Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42053667›Full record

ReviewScience and engineering ethics2026

An Integrative Review of Engineering Ethics Education at Delft University of Technology: Contexts, Assumptions, and Practices.

Daniel M Phoenix, Qin Zhu, Andrea Gammon, Rockwell Clancy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Daniel M PhoenixDepartment of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Qin ZhuDepartment of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. qinzhu@vt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6673-1901
Andrea GammonFaculty of Technology, Policy, & Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Rockwell ClancyDepartment of Engineering Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engineering ethics education has undergone significant development across institutions worldwide over the last three decades. While earlier analyses have examined aspects of this development, few integrated accounts have traced the evolution of a leading institution's approach to engineering ethics education across this period. This paper addresses this gap. It presents an integrative review of engineering ethics education at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), one of Europe's most influential institutions in this field. Drawing on peer-reviewed articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, and institutional documents published by TU Delft scholars over three decades, we trace the historical development of the institution's approach, analyze its core theoretical assumptions and examine its learning goals and evolving pedagogical practices. The review identifies two distinct stages in the institution's development. It reflects a deepening of learning goals and, most notably, a shift toward experiential and non-cognitive pedagogical approaches. These findings offer a reference point for discussing how ethics should be taught to engineers, how to integrate it into technical curricula, and which kinds of normative stances institutions should adopt in their ethics programs.

Indexed as

CurriculumEngineeringEthics, ProfessionalEuropeHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansLearningUniversitiesCase studiesEngineering ethicsEthics educationHistorical contextInstructional practicesTheoretical assumptions

Identifiers

PMID42053667
PMCPMC13275519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.