The Construction of Tetrahedral Model of Engineering Ethical Evaluation

To achieve great projects, great attention should be attached to ethical issues of engineering. But endless immoralities in the field of engineering expose the lack of attention and the ineffectiveness of implementation of engineering ethical evaluation. The 'Mirror' and the 'Lamp' — these two metaphors used by M. H. Abrams vividly expose the differences in people’s way of understanding which inspires author’s study of the model of engineering ethical evaluation. With four elements of the project —artifact, engineer, user and environment, a tetrahedral model of integrity, strong restoring force and high stability is built. While their roles and responsibilities differ, each has to demonstrate a commitment to professional and ethical standards. In this model, four 'Lamps' — i. e, four elements of engineering — in four corners provide light while four 'Mirrors' — the result of reflection of four elements — reflect whether the tetrahedral model can truthfully evaluate the level of engineering ethics. The combination of the 'Lamps' and 'Mirrors' illuminates engineering ethical evaluation and leads to a plurality of evaluation standards, while simultaneously fostering both the avoidance of simple de-instrumentalization and the sustainability of ethical evaluation. Plurality of evaluation standards means the consideration of value differences in a multi-value state. The avoidance of de-instrumentalization means to prevent the engineer’s expertise from fossilization. The sustainability of ethical evaluation accelerates the fulfillment of our dream, for the ultimate benefit of humankind. Ethical evaluation of the project not only helps more engineers to use expertise in pursuit of the public good, but also make more projects to meet people’s short-term expectations and long-term cares.

A Framework for the Assessment of Research and Its Impacts

This paper proposes a holistic framework for the development of models for the assessment of research activities and their impacts. It distinguishes three dimensions, including in an original way, data as a main dimension, together with theory and methodology. Each dimension of the framework is further characterized by three main building blocks： education, research, and innovation （theory）; efficiency, effectiveness, and impact （methodology）; and availability, interoperability, and ＂unit-free＂ property （data）. The different dimensions and their nine constituent building blocks are attributes of an overarching concept, denoted as ＂quality.＂ Three additional quality attributes are identified as implementation factors （tailorability, transparency, and openness） and three ＂enabling＂ conditions （convergence, mixed methods, and knowledge infrastructures） complete the fi-amework. A framework is required to develop models of metrics. Models of metrics are necessary to assess the meaning, validity, and robustness of metrics. The proposed framework can be a useful reference for the development of the ethics of research evaluation. It can act as a common denominator for different analytical levels and relevant aspects and is able to embrace many different and heterogeneous streams of literature. Directions for future research are provided.