Abstract
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are central to any educational system. The term started with the National Science Foundation as “SMET” and was changed to STEM at a later date due to phonetic reasons. The term was not widely used until Virginia Tech University began offering a “STEM education” degree in 2005 (Friedman 2005). The term STEM covers a broad spectrum of different disciplines. While, in general, STEM is used as an umbrella term for the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, and technology-related fields, there are some variations in its usage. For example, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) characterizes STEM as including chemistry, computers and information technology, engineering, geoscience, life sciences, mathematical sciences, physics and astronomy, psychology, social sciences, educational research, and STEM education (Gonzalez and Kuezi 2012). Whereas this approach considers the social sciences to be of central importance to STEM and the STEM workforce (Spalter-Roth 2004), in the United Kingdom, STEM is seen to include fields such as medicine, dentistry, and architecture but exclude the social sciences and education (United Kingdom, House of Lords, Science, and Technology, Committee 2012).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Award # 1635661
References
ABET. 2022. Criterion MI3 student outcomes, Outcome 4. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs 2022–2023. Accessed 24 Mar 2023. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2022-2023/
African Research Integrity Network. 2022. Accessed 24 Mar 2023. https://africarinetwork.wixsite.com/website/about
All European Academies (ALLEA). 2017. The European code of conduct for research integrity. Berlin: All European Academies. https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf32A.
Anderson, M.S., M.A. Shaw, N.H. Steneck, E. Konkle, and T. Kamata. 2013. Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 217–261. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5.
Bain, L.E., L.A. Tchuisseu-Kwangoua, O. Adeagbo, N.C. Nkfusai, H. Amu, F.I. Saah, and F. Kombe. 2021. Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. The Pan African Medical Journal 43: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2022.43.182.37804.
Balakrishnan, B., F. Tochinai, and H. Kanemitsu. 2019. Engineering ethics education: A comparative study of Japan and Malaysia. Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0051-3.
Becker, B.A., P. Denny, J. Finnie-Ansley, Al Luxton-Reilly, J. Prather, and E.A. Santos. 2023. Programming is hard-or at least it used to be: Educational opportunities and challenges of AI code generation. In SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical symposium on computer science education V. March 2023, 500–506. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569759.
Bielefeldt, and Marybeth Lima. 2020. Service-learning and civic engagement as the basis for engineering design education. In New innovations in engineering education and navel engineering, ed. Nur Md Sayeed Hassan and Sergio Antonio Neves Lousada. London: InTech Open.
Bird, S.J. 2001. Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 7: 455–468.
———. 2014. Social responsibility and research ethics: Not either/or but both. Professional Ethics Report 27 (2): 1–4.
Borenstein, J., and A. Howard. 2021. Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics 1: 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7.
Chen, K.C., and L.L. Hester. 2023. A dramatized method for teaching undergraduate students responsible research conduct. Accountability in Research 30 (3): 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1981871.
European Commission. Science with and for society policy brief, No. 4, November 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5bf5c08aa&appId=PPGMS#:~:text=Research%20integrity%20can%20be%20understood,of%20research%20on%20the%20other
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farra, Straus, and Giroux.
Fuchs, K. 2023. Exploring the opportunities and challenges of NLP models in higher education: Is Chat GPT a blessing or a curse? Frontiers in Education 8: 1166682. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1166682.
Gonzalez, H.B., and J. Kuenzi. 2012. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): A primer. Washington: Congressional Research Service. https://www.ccc.edu/departments/Documents/STEM_labor.pdf.
Haven, T., H.R. Pasman, G. Widdershoven, L. Bouter, and J. Tijdink. 2020. Researchers’ perceptions of a responsible research climate: A multi focus group study. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6): 3017–3036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00256-8.
Herkert, J.R. 2005. Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics. 11: 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0006-3.
———. 2006. Confessions of a Shoveler: STS subcultures and engineering ethics. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society 26 (5): 410–418.
Hildt, Elisabeth, K. Laas, C.Z. Miller, S. Taylor, and E.M. Brey. 2019. Empowering graduate students to address ethics in research environment. Cambridge Quarterly of HealthCare Ethics 28 (3): 542–550.
Hofmann, B., and Holm, S. 2019. Research integrity: environment, experience, or ethos? Research Ethics, 15 (3–4): 1–13.
Holsapple, M.A., D.D. Carpenter, J.A. Sutkus, C.J. Finelli, and T.S. Harding. 2012. Framing faculty and student discrepancies in engineering ethics education delivery . Journal of Engineering Education, 101 (2): 169–186.
Kalichman, M.W. 2012. Why teach research ethics? In Practical guidance on science and engineering ethics education for instructors and administrators, 5–16. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Kalichman, M. 2013. A brief history of RCR education. Accountability in Research 20 (5–6): 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822260.
———. 2014. Rescuing responsible conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in Research 21: 68–83.
Kalichman, M.W., and D.K. Plemmons. 2007. Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine 82 (9): 846–852.
Mulhearn, T.J., L.M. Steele, L.L. Watts, K.E. Mederios, M.D. Mumford, and S. Connelly. 2017. Review of instructional approaches in ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics 23: 883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9803-0.
Mumford, M.D., S.T. Murphy, S. Connelly, J.H. Hill, A.L. Antes, R.P. Brown, and L.D. Devenport. 2007. Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics & Behavior 17 (4): 337–366.
Newberry, B. 2004. The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2): 343–351.
Perković Paloš, A., R. Roje, V. Tomić, and A. Marušić. 2023. Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2163632.
Schiff, D., J. Borenstein, J. Biddle, and K. Laas. 2021. AI ethics in the public, private, and NGO sectors: A review of a global document collection. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2 (1): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3052127.
Schraudner, M., K. Hochfeld, and C. Striebing. 2019. Arbeitskultur und Arbeitsatmosphaere in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Kurzbericht, Fraunhofer Center for Responsible Research and Innovation. https://www.mpg.de/13631088/Kurzbericht_MPG-Arbeitskultur.pdf
Simiyn, P.R., E. Buraimoh, and I.E. Davidson. 2021. Fostering research integrity in African higher education. African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies 3 (Special Issue): 97–109. https://doi.org/10.51415/ajims.v3i1.980.
Spalter-Roth, R. 2004. Social sciences are key to developing the STEM workforce. https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/savvy/footnotes/feb04/fn3.html
Stahl, B.C., and D. Eke. 2024. The ethics of ChatGPT: Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management 74: 102700.
Steele, L.M.T.J., K.E. Mulhearn, L.L. Medeiros, S. Connelly Watts, and M.D. Mumford. 2016. How do we know what works? A review and critique of current practices in ethics training evaluation. Accountability in Research 23 (6): 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547.
Steneck, N.H., and R.E. Bulger. 2007. The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine 82 (9): 829–834.
Struyf, A., H. De Loof, J. Boeve-de Pauw, and P. Van Petegem. 2019. Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education 41 (10): 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee. 2012. Chapter 2: Definition of STEM. In Higher education in science, technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. 17 Jul 2012. Accessed 23 Mar 2023. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsctech/37/3705.htm
United States, National Institutes of Health. 1989. Requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 18 (45): 1. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1989_12_22_Vol_18_No_45.pdf.
———. 1992. Reminder and update: Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training grants. NIH Guide 21 (43) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noticefiles/not92-236.html.
———. 2022. FY 2022 updated guidance: Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Notice Number NOT-OD-22-055. February 17. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-22-055.html
United States, National Science Foundation. 2009. Responsible conduct of research. Proposal and award policies and procedures guide. Part II – Award and administration guidelines, p. IV3. Last accessed 30 Jul 2013. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf10_1/nsf10_1.pdf
———. 2022. PAPPG requirements on RECR certification Chapter II.D. 1.d https://beta.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/23-1
Von Schomberg, R. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible innovation. Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society, ed. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heintz, 51–74. Wiley.
Watts, L.L., K.E. Medeiros, T.J. Mulhearn, L.M. Steele, S. Connelly, and M.D. Mumford. 2017. Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic comparison spanning 35 years of ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior 5 (27): 351–384.
Weil, V., and R. Arzbaecher. 1996. Ethics and relationships in laboratories and research communities. Professional Ethics 4 (3–4): 83–125. https://doi.org/10.5840/profethics199543/414.
Woolston, C. 2019. Ph.D. Poll reveals fear and joy, contentment and anguish. Nature 575: 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03459-7.
Zembylas, M. 2023. A decolonial approach to AI in higher education teaching and learning: Strategies for undoing the ethics of digital neocolonialism. Learning, Media and Technology 48 (1): 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.2010094.
Zhu, Q., B.K. Jesiek, and J. Yuan. 2014. Engineering education policymaking in cross-national context: A critical analysis of engineering education in China. Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Indianapolis, IN June 15–18. Paper 8896.
Zwart, H., L. Landeweerd, A. van Rooij, and A. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hildt, E., Laas, K., Miller, C.Z., Brey, E.M. (2024). Building Inclusive Ethical Cultures in STEM. In: Hildt, E., Laas, K., Brey, E.M., Miller, C.Z. (eds) Building Inclusive Ethical Cultures in STEM. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51560-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51560-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-51559-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-51560-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)