↓ Skip to main content

How Should We Foster the Professional Integrity of Engineers in Japan? A Pride-Based Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
How Should We Foster the Professional Integrity of Engineers in Japan? A Pride-Based Approach
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2007
DOI 10.1007/s11948-007-9039-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tetsuji Iseda

Abstract

I discuss the predicament that engineering-ethics education in Japan now faces and propose a solution to this. The predicament is professional motivation, i.e., the problem of how to motivate engineering students to maintain their professional integrity. The special professional responsibilities of engineers are often explained either as an implicit social contract between the profession and society (the "social-contract" view), or as requirements for membership in the profession (the "membership-requirement" view). However, there are empirical data that suggest that such views will not do in Japan, and this is the predicament that confronts us. In this country, the profession of engineering did not exist 10 years ago and is still quite underdeveloped. Engineers in this country do not have privileges, high income, or high social status. Under such conditions, neither the social-contract view nor the membership-requirement view is convincing. As an alternative approach that might work in Japan, I propose a pride-based view. The notion of pride has been analyzed in the virtue-ethics literature, but the full potential of this notion has not been explored. Unlike other kinds of pride, professional pride can directly benefit the general public by motivating engineers to do excellent work even without social rewards, since being proud of themselves is already a reward. My proposal is to foster a particular kind of professional pride associated with the importance of professional services in society, as the motivational basis for professional integrity. There is evidence to suggest that this model works.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 16 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 8 16%
Psychology 5 10%
Engineering 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 18 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2019.
All research outputs
#15,057,216
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#680
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,389
of 78,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 78,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.