東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reaso...

Odom, P. W.,

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers Developing and Validating the GEERI /

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers Developing and Validating the GEERI // P. W Odom.
Author:	Odom, P. W.,
Description:	1 electronic resource (308 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-10, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-10A.
Subject:	Language. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31968603
ISBN:	9798311942430

Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers Developing and Validating the GEERI /
Odom, P. W.,

Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers Developing and Validating the GEERI /P. W Odom. - 1 electronic resource (308 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-10, Section: A.

This study examines the evolution of moral reasoning among STEM professionals, focusing particularly on those within high-consequence, regulated environments. Building upon Kohlberg's moral development framework and the Defining Issues Test (DIT), the study introduces the General Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (GEERI), a revised version of the Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (EERI), adapted for broader application across educational and professional engineering contexts. Additionally, a new set of 'prominence' indices are introduced as part of this research, intended to aid in investigating shifts in moral reasoning patterns by measuring the relative prominence of principled, conventional, and preconventional reasoning schemas compared to each other. The research explores three primary hypotheses: the preservation of GEERI's validity after changing its language to be more inclusive beyond student populations, the coherence of validity after reducing the length of the instrument to lower burden on participants, and the influence of high-stakes professional settings on moral reasoning patterns, particularly the shift from principled to conventional reasoning.Findings support the validity of both the original EERI and the new, shorter, and more generally applicable GEERI. Furthermore, findings reveal distinct shifts in moral reasoning as individuals transition from educational to professional settings. Notably, professionals in the highstakes and highly regulated environment sampled demonstrated decreased reliance on principled reasoning, as measured by the traditional P and N2 indices commonly used in DIT-based instruments. At the same time, there was a concurrent increase in conventional reasoning, as indicated by the newly developed 'prominence' indices, which helped uncover the tradeoff STEM professionals are experiencing between principled and conventional judgement. This approach allows for a broader understanding of how different forms of reasoning are prioritized in professional settings, highlighting not just a shift towards conventional reasoning, but also the dynamics among all reasoning schemas as individuals adapt to their environments. These findings underscore the potential impact of high consequence and strictly regulated environments on ethical decision-making.The observed shift towards increased conventional judgement, along with the decreased reliance on principled judgements, challenges linear moral development models and suggests a context-dependent adaptation in moral reasoning as a pragmatic response to the demands of professional environments. The findings raise important psychological and philosophical questions about whether the observed shift to conventional responses represents an actual reversion to less principled thinking or whether truly principled reasoning may lead to similar outcomes given the context in which these STEM professionals operate. If the latter, it suggests the need for a more nuanced paradigm of moral reasoning assessment.

English

ISBN: 9798311942430Subjects--Topical Terms:

643551
Language.

Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers Developing and Validating the GEERI /
LDR:04352nmm a22003733i 4500 001 2433298
005 20250825104044.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2025 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798311942430
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31968603
035 $a (MiAaPQD)Purdue28557395
035 $a AAI31968603
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Odom, P. W., $e author. $3 3822849
245 1 0 $a Contextual Adaptation of Moral Reasoning in Engineers Developing and Validating the GEERI / $c P. W Odom.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2025
300 $a 1 electronic resource (308 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-10, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Brophy, Sean Committee members: Douglas, Kerrie; Jesiek, Brent; Ohland, Matthew; Zoltowski, Carla.
502 $b Ph.D. $c Purdue University $d 2025.
520 $a This study examines the evolution of moral reasoning among STEM professionals, focusing particularly on those within high-consequence, regulated environments. Building upon Kohlberg's moral development framework and the Defining Issues Test (DIT), the study introduces the General Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (GEERI), a revised version of the Engineering Ethics Reasoning Instrument (EERI), adapted for broader application across educational and professional engineering contexts. Additionally, a new set of 'prominence' indices are introduced as part of this research, intended to aid in investigating shifts in moral reasoning patterns by measuring the relative prominence of principled, conventional, and preconventional reasoning schemas compared to each other. The research explores three primary hypotheses: the preservation of GEERI's validity after changing its language to be more inclusive beyond student populations, the coherence of validity after reducing the length of the instrument to lower burden on participants, and the influence of high-stakes professional settings on moral reasoning patterns, particularly the shift from principled to conventional reasoning.Findings support the validity of both the original EERI and the new, shorter, and more generally applicable GEERI. Furthermore, findings reveal distinct shifts in moral reasoning as individuals transition from educational to professional settings. Notably, professionals in the highstakes and highly regulated environment sampled demonstrated decreased reliance on principled reasoning, as measured by the traditional P and N2 indices commonly used in DIT-based instruments. At the same time, there was a concurrent increase in conventional reasoning, as indicated by the newly developed 'prominence' indices, which helped uncover the tradeoff STEM professionals are experiencing between principled and conventional judgement. This approach allows for a broader understanding of how different forms of reasoning are prioritized in professional settings, highlighting not just a shift towards conventional reasoning, but also the dynamics among all reasoning schemas as individuals adapt to their environments. These findings underscore the potential impact of high consequence and strictly regulated environments on ethical decision-making.The observed shift towards increased conventional judgement, along with the decreased reliance on principled judgements, challenges linear moral development models and suggests a context-dependent adaptation in moral reasoning as a pragmatic response to the demands of professional environments. The findings raise important psychological and philosophical questions about whether the observed shift to conventional responses represents an actual reversion to less principled thinking or whether truly principled reasoning may lead to similar outcomes given the context in which these STEM professionals operate. If the latter, it suggests the need for a more nuanced paradigm of moral reasoning assessment.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0183
650 4 $a Language. $3 643551
650 4 $a Software. $2 gtt. $3 619355
650 4 $a Usability. $3 3681540
650 4 $a Investigations. $3 3561159
650 4 $a Accreditation. $3 823129
650 4 $a Gender. $3 2001319
650 4 $a Adaptation. $3 3562958
650 4 $a Educational attainment. $3 913521
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Design. $3 518875
650 4 $a Engineering education. $3 3564721
650 4 $a Engineering research. $3 3690201
690 $a 0389
690 $a 0679
710 2 $a Purdue University. $e degree granting institution. $3 3759105
720 1 $a Brophy, Sean $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-10A.
790 $a 0183
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2025
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31968603