engineering empathy by a thesis presented in partial ... · needs of developed and developing...
TRANSCRIPT
Engineering Empathy
by
Kaitlin Vortherms
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Approved April 2016 by the
Graduate Supervisory Committee:
Thomas Seager, Chair
Sarah Tracy
Susan Spierre Clark
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
May 2016
i
ABSTRACT
Engineering ethics is preoccupied with technical failure. To ameliorate the risk that
engineering works might either blow up or fall down, the engineering code of ethics
provides guidance of how engineers should conduct themselves. For example,
the Fundamental Canons in the National Society of Professional Engineers code of ethics
states that engineers should hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public.
As a result, engineering designs meet basic human needs such as food, water and shelter -
- at risks that are generally considered acceptable. However, even safe designs fail to
meet our needs ranked higher in Maslow's hierarchy -- such as belonging, esteem and
self-actualization. While these have historically not been ethical priorities, increasing
expectations in developed countries now include more complex ethical concepts such as
sustainability and social justice. We can expect these trends toward higher and more
complex human needs to continue -- although the profession seems ill-prepared. We
argue that an empathic approach to engineering design is necessary to meet these higher
needs of developed and developing societies. To guide engineers towards this approach,
we propose a pluralistic interpretation of empathy grounded in an understanding of the
three parts of the mind: cognitive, affective, and conative. In fact, product
designers already use empathy in their design processes. However, an exemplar of an
empathic design is harder to find in civil engineering disciplines. This paper discusses
an example of the Hoover Dam Bypass, which resulted in an award-winning design and
construction that improved traffic flow, reduced vulnerability to terrorist attack,
and accounted for historical factors and environmental impacts. However, this technical
success is an empathic failure. Although project leaders commissioned ethnographic
ii
studies to understand the impact the bridge would have on the local Native American
populations and their cultural sites, the eventual design showed little consideration of the
concerns that were revealed. For engineering designs such as bridges, other infrastructure
and systems to meet the needs of the various populations in which they serve, engineers
need to incorporate empathy into their designs.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv
THE INFLUENCE OF ENGINEERING ETHICS ............................................................ 1
MASLOW’S HIERARCHY AND MEETING HUMAN NEEDS ................................... 2
EMPATHY: A PLURALISTIC APPROACH ................................................................... 8
COGNITIVE ............................................................................................ 10
AFFECTIVE ............................................................................................ 11
CONATIVE ............................................................................................. 13
EMPATHY WORKS: EXAMPLES FROM DESIGN AND HEALTHCARE ............. 15
CIVIL ENGINEERING CASE STUDY: HOOVER DAM BYPASS ......................... ...18
BRINGING IT TOGETHER: ETHICS, EMPATHY AND ENGINEERING DESIGN24
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………….28
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1: Challenger explosion ........................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Hyatt Regency collapse ....................................................................................... 2
Figure 3: Maslow's Hierarchy ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 4: A highway & metric for meeting human needs, defined by Maslow .................. 6
Figure 5: Cook stoves & corresponding metric for meeting needs, defined by Maslow .... 8
Figure 6: A pluralistic definition of empathy ................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Empathy guidelines ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Design thinking process .................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: OXO & corresponding metric for meeting needs, defined by Maslow............. 17
Figure 10: Prosthetics & corresponding metric for meeting needs, defined by Maslow . 18
Figure 11: Hoover Dam & bypass bridge ......................................................................... 19
Figure 12: Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge & corresponding metric for meeting needs ....... 24
1
THE INFLUENCE OF ENGINEERING ETHICS
Engineering ethics is preoccupied with technical failure. The Challenger explosion,
Figure 1: Challenger explosion, Figure 1, Hyatt Regency Collapse, Figure 2, and more
recently, the Deepwater Horizon spill are famous disasters and familiar engineering
ethics case studies. Because engineering is commonly perceived, even by engineers, as a
quantitative discipline concerned with technical problem solving (Michelfelder & Jones,
2013; Roeser, 2012; Schmidt, 2014), the worst case scenario is a technical failure that
adversely impacts the lives of end-users. Therefore, to ameliorate the risk that
engineering works might either fall down or blow up, a Kantian, or, deontological
approach to ethics, i.e. moral requirements based on a standard of rationality and the
adherence to a set of duties or rules (Hursthouse, 2013; Rober, 2014), provides engineers
guidance of how they should conduct themselves and what they should and should not do
when carrying out their professional responsibilities (Schmidt, 2014). Scholars see the
codes of ethics as an expression of a profession’s ethical standards (Davis, 1996),
articulate an engineer’s responsibility toward society (van der Burg & van Gorp, 2005),
and help engineers prioritize competing design criteria (Michelfelder & Jones, 2013). For
example the Fundamental Canons in the National Society of Professional Engineer’s
code of ethics states that engineers should hold paramount the health, safety and welfare
of the public.
2
As a result, engineering designs meet basic human needs such as food, water and shelter
– at risks that are generally considered acceptable. For example, agricultural
mechanization and engineered crops such as the tomato have increased efficiency and
yield, necessary to feed a growing global population. In addition, civil engineers have
designed and constructed water supply and sanitation systems since the 19th century that
helped to reduce disease, provide growing urban populations with clean water, and
allowed for western expansion in the United States. The design of buildings and shelter to
protect from the elements and provide a sense of security have been around since the
beginning of recorded history. Engineers are expert in the optimization and conversion of
natural resources into uses for humanities basic needs (Smith, 2016). The advantages of
these designs outweigh the potential risk of failure or contamination and are therefore
considered acceptable and safe. However, even these designs fail to meet humanities’
higher needs.
MASLOW’S HIERARCHY AND MEETING HUMAN NEEDS
However, even safe engineering designs fail to meet our needs ranked higher in
Maslow’s hierarchy – such as belonging, esteem and self-actualization. Abraham
Figure 1: Challenger explosion Figure 2: Hyatt Regency collapse
3
Maslow, an American psychologist, developed a motivational theory of how human
needs are met. He posits that once the basic, physiological, needs such as food and water
are satisfied, that people seek to reach the next level of needs (Maslow, 1943). Once the
safety needs are met, people then seek to fulfill the belonging needs and so on, Figure 3.
The belonging needs are realized through relationships and the achievement of a place in
a group. The failure to meet these social needs is associated with mental and physical
health problems, including depression and suicidal tendencies (Powers, Worsham,
Freeman, Wheatley, & Heatherton, 2014) and a feeling of disconnect activates the desire
for social connections, the desire to fulfill the belonging need (Maslow, 1943; Powers et
al., 2014).
Once the belonging needs are met, people seek the esteem needs which are realized
through achieving a high evaluation of themselves, self-respect and self-worth. Having a
high level of self-esteem has a positive impact on a person’s emotional well-being and
Esteem
Safety
Belonging
Physiological
Self Actualization
Figure 3: Maslow's Hierarchy
4
motivation (Pyszczynski & Kesebir, 2013). Once all lower tier needs are satisfied, people
may still experience the need for something greater. Self-actualization is realized through
becoming everything that one is capable becoming, or, finding your calling in the world.
Somebody who is self-actualized is more likely to have healthier interpersonal
relationships and are capable of expressing genuine empathy (Ivtzan, Gardner, Bernard,
Sekhon, & Hart, 2013). Unlike the other needs in the hierarchy which are pursued out of
a need for relief, self-actualization is considered a higher level need which relates
positively to measures of psychological adjustment, the behavioral process of
maintaining balance among and between their needs and external obstacles
(Encyclopaedia Britancia, 2016; Ivtzan et al., 2013).
While these needs have historically not been ethical priorities in engineering, increasing
expectations in developed and developing countries now include more complex ethical
concepts such as sustainability and social justice. Contemporary engineering problems
such as climate change and globalization require new approaches in order to the meet and
maintain existing systems in the bottom two tiers while simultaneously requiring
designers to meet people’s higher needs through their designs. Even Tim Brown, CEO of
IDEO, one of the world’s leading design firms, recognizes that striving to meet higher
needs is important. He says, “As more of our basic needs are met, we increasingly expect
sophisticated experiences that are emotionally satisfying and meaningful. These
experiences will not be simple products, they will be complex combinations of products,
services spaces and information” (Brown, 2008). Therefore, it should come as no surprise
that the products and infrastructure that we associate with and are surrounded by have an
5
impact on our mental health and well-being (Evans, 2003; Roeser, 2012). Furthermore,
products are important and instrumental in people’s lives because people believe their
products can help accomplish goals (McDonagh, Hekkert, van Erp, & Gyi, 2004) and in
this case, empower them to fulfill their needs. No one wants to own or live in a world
where their products and cities make them feel insecure or disconnected. Through their
designs, engineers have the power to improve the quality of life and well-being of the
public in which they serve. In fact, the primary goal of engineering is to serve people
(Schmidt, 2014) and contribute to their welfare (Colby & Sullivan, 2008). In addition,
engineering designs have high societal impact and are intimately connected to people’s
health and standard of living (Academies, 2006). As a result, engineering products and
infrastructure should be designed with societies’ best interest in mind, especially because
it is their ethical responsibility to hold paramount the health safety and welfare of the
public. However, studies like Chech’s (2013) have found that engineering students
become disengaged with public welfare over the course of their academic careers and
other studies have found that majoring in engineering is negatively associated with active
listening and cultural awareness (Colby & Sullivan, 2008). This might be influenced by
the fact that engineering emphasizes the technical aspects of engineering design at the
expense of interpersonal skills (Pahl & Beitz, 2013) socioeconomic inequality, global
politics (Cech, 2013) and sustainability. This is concerning because engineers have to be
able to understand stakeholder values in order to make appropriate decisions that help
people achieve their needs. We can expect this trend towards higher and more complex
human needs to continue, although the profession seems ill-prepared. The needs outlined
by Maslow provide a useful metric for understanding which needs are being addressed
6
for various stakeholders. For example, highways and freeways are a technical success,
and are vital to transportation systems and cities where many stakeholders are involved in
the design and implementation. These stakeholders include engineers, contractors, city
and state officials and organizations, environmental groups, special interest groups and
various public populations including commuters and local residents. Freeways and
highways serve a basic purpose, basic needs and qualify as a safe structure for
commuting. This criteria qualifies freeways for the second tier on Maslow’s hierarchy.
For some people, like the commuters, the freeway might serve the belonging need by
connecting people with their families, friends and jobs. However, for others, it may be the
opposite. The United States has a history of displacement due to road development. In the
1960s it was estimated that 15,000 families and 1,500 business were being displaced by
interstate construction each year (Weingroff, 2015) and the inequality that this type of
displacement created, inspired activists like Jane Jacobs, who advocated for the
cancelation of the proposed lower Manhattan Expressway that would have leveled parts
of what are now SoHo and Little Italy in New York City.
Figure 4: A highway and corresponding metric for meeting human needs, as defined by Maslow
Belonging
Physiological
Safety
Esteem
Self
Actualize
7
In addition, engineers have been called on in recent years to assist in designing products
and infrastructure for international development and there have been an increase in clubs
and programs across universities worldwide to meet this demand. In 2010, UNESCO
published its first report on engineering which is an attempt, “to contribute to greater
international understanding of the issues, challenges and opportunities facing
engineering, with a particular focus on contributions of our discipline to sustainable
development” (Unesco, 2010). In response, a slew of new engineering designed products
and solutions such as point of use renewable energy technologies, water filtration
systems, medicines, health and agricultural technologies have entered the international
development market. Although these are well-intentioned and are designed to help meet
basic needs, many don’t empower people in developing countries beyond the bottom two
tiers in Maslow’s hierarchy. For example, engineers have been designing cook stoves to
replace open fires since the 1950s to reduce negative health impacts. In multiple attempts
to solve this problem, project teams have found that the stoves are not valued or used to
the degree they had intended (Hanna, Duflo, & Greenstone, 2012). They met the basic
needs of food and safety, and were operating as designed, but people weren’t using the
stoves beyond initial introduction. This is because the stoves failed to meet their higher
needs. Many of the stoves were built as tall and skinny and wouldn’t support the type of
meals and cooking styles of the locals (Wetmore, 2012). In addition, the stoves typically
required additional parts and excessive cleaning to maintain, which makes them cost and
energy prohibitive for users in developing countries (Hanna et al., 2012).
8
Figure 5: Cook stoves and corresponding metric for meeting needs, as defined by Maslow
Engineers are being called on even more to help solve complex global problems and are
pervasive in all parts of society. However, the profession continues to focus on technical
designs that fail to understand the cultural, social and individual perspectives and
contexts despite the ethical guidelines for holding paramount the welfare of the public.
Knowing that ethics falls short of helping to meet people’s more complex needs, we
argue that an empathic approach to engineering design is necessary to maintain the basic
needs and meet the higher needs of developed and developing societies.
EMPATHY: A PLURALISTIC APPROACH
Empathy, often recognized as the ability to walk in someone else’s shoes, is a popular
field of study but was originally popularized in the eighteenth century by the Scottish
philosopher and economist Adam Smith. Since then, empathy remains a fundamental
research focus area in psychology and developmental studies, medicine, communications,
and design. Empathy has experienced somewhat of a revolution in recent years due in
part to a swath of new research studies in neuro-science (Gonzalez-Liencres, Shamay-
Tsoory, & Brüne, 2013; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2005), and popular books and articles
Belonging
Physiological
Safety
Esteem
Self
Actualize
9
(Krznaric, 2008, 2014; Rifkin, 2009) inspired by the call for empathy in a world impacted
by increased natural disasters and global conflict. Although some scholars in engineering
ethics and education consider empathy an important skill in moral design (Roeser, 2012)
and acknowledge the benefits of empathy in engineering education (Strobel, Hess, Pan, &
Wachter Morris, 2013), empathy research remains underrepresented in the engineering
literature. The lack of empathy literature is indicative of a larger problem, the lack of
empathic engineering design. This gap is concerning because, as discussed in the above
section, it is the responsibility of the engineer to design products and infrastructure in the
interest of and for the health, safety and welfare of the public. This requires that
engineers make design decisions based on their understanding of their users and the best
place to start is with empathy.
Empathy has been identified as having the power to bring about social change (Krznaric,
2008). In addition, empathy has been proven to be a necessary skill for contemporary
leaders (Wan Abdul Rahman & Castelli, 2013), reduces prejudice and racism (Todd,
Bodenhausen, Richeson, & Galinsky, 2011), and fight inequality (C D Batson et al.,
1997; C. D. Batson, 1994). In a complex world where engineers are being asked to step
up and help solve global problems, the ability to empathize is critical. In an effort to give
some form and direction to the definition and application of empathy into engineering
design, we propose a pluralistic interpretation of empathy grounded in an understanding
of the three parts of the mind: conative, affective and cognitive (Adams, Gilbert, &
College, 2012). The conative domain houses instinctive behavior, the affective domain
houses emotional responses and the cognitive domain houses learned information
10
(Adams, Antaya, Seager, & Landis, 2014). A consensus within and across disciplines on
the definition of empathy does not exist, but the definitions of empathy available in the
literature have a tendency to fall into one of the following domains: empathy as an
affective ability (Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron-Cohen, & David, 2004; a Mehrabian &
Epstein, 1972; A. Mehrabian, Young, & Sato, 1988), empathy as a cognitive ability
(Hogan, 1969) and empathy as an instinctual behavior (Preston & Waal, 2002). Instead of
trying to define a singular, “correct” definition of empathy, we posit that all three
definition perspectives provide valuable insight and guidance for empathic engineering.
Figure 6: A pluralistic definition of empathy
COGNITIVE
Empathy has been operationalized as a cognitive ability, i.e. “perspective taking”, which
enables people to make an imaginative leap into another person’s mind. Some of the
original researchers of contemporary empathy understood it as a cognitive ability that
involved mental activities in acquiring and processing information for a better
understanding of another person’s intellectual state (Kohut 1971; Hogan 1969) which
enables us to predict behavior through perspective-shifting, i.e. imagining being in
someone else’s position (Coplan & Goldie 2014). On the other hand, some scholars
11
disagree that empathy is a cognitive ability but instead suggest that, perspective taking
and Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to reason about mental states and behavior
(Apperly, 2012), are ways to elicit empathy (C Daniel Batson, 2001; C. D. Batson, 1994).
Nevertheless, the cognitive abilities to understand the worldview of another are
intimately connected to empathy. For example, Roman Krzaric, a sociologist and cultural
thinker, acknowledges that the ability to fully understand another person’s worldview is
limited but understanding at least a fraction of the person’s perspective can lead to
behavior prediction (2008).
The ability to take the perspective of another and imagine a possible future based off of
their predicated behavior is useful for engineering design. Engineers use assumptions and
modeling as a way of predicting the future and guard against failures. Similarly, it would
be useful for engineers to make initial assumptions and modeling decisions based off
their understanding of the end user and other stakeholders in the system. Batson et al.,
suggests that perspective taking and ToM are ways to elicit empathy which they and
others suggest is an affective ability.
AFFECTIVE
Another common definition for empathy can be categorized as affective empathy, a
shared emotional response (Krzaric 2008). Sally (2000) reinforces this concept of
empathy as an emotional response by understanding it as seeking to identify with
another’s emotions so that one experiences oneself to be similar to or nearly identical
with the other person. Affective empathy allows a person to experience an emotion
12
triggered by another’s emotion (Baron-Cohen & Wheel Wright 2004) but the emotion
does not have to be same, just similar (Batson 2009). Just as Roman Krzaric suggests that
we are limited in our ability to completely understand another’s person’s mental state, we
are also limited in understanding another person’s emotional state. However, there is still
value in understanding the emotions of other’s through your own experiences. For
example, if a friend’s dog just passed away, you might share a feeling of sadness but if
you’ve never lost a dog, it won’t be the same sadness your friend feels. In addition to
understanding affective empathy as a shared emotional state, affective definitions also
tend to include a care and prosocial component (Davis, 1983; Eisenberg & Miller 1987).
This is because emotional expression serves as what Decety and Melzoff calls the “social
glue” that maintains emotional reciprocity among groups (2011). Contrary to the popular
belief that people are naturally materialistic and self-interested, people are a
fundamentally empathic species that are capable of becoming part of another’s
experience through the shared feelings of that experience (Rifkin, 2009). Empathy and
emotions are centrally involved in moral judgement and prosocial action (Hoffman, 2000;
Prinz, 2007) and it is the combination of emotional and cognitive reason that helps to
create this moral outlook which is an essential tool for understanding others and making
decisions on the best course of action to take (Goldie and Coplan, 2014).
The ability to share the emotions of another person, improve pro-social behavior, and use
emotions to help create a moral outlook are important to engineering because engineers
have an ethical responsibility to the public, and if they are looking out for the welfare of
13
society, emotions will play an important role in ethical decision making when it comes to
tackling complex problems like social justice and sustainability.
CONATIVE
Theodore Lipps, one of the original empathy scholars, considered empathy an instinct,
one that 98% of people are born with (Lips, 1907; de Waal, 2009;Krznaric, 2008).
Modern researchers in biology, behavioral psychology and neuroscience are adding to the
increasing literature on empathy by providing new information and insights into mirror
neurons, often called empathy neurons, (Oberman & Ramachandran 2007) because of
their ability to not only fire when you are performing an action but when you watch
someone perform an action. Rizzolatti, one of the first researchers to explore the mirror
neuron system, tells us that mirror neurons, “allow us to grasp the minds of others not
through conceptual reasoning but through direct simulation. By feeling, not by thinking”
(Blakelsee, 2006). Similarly, some scholars recognize that empathy starts with, “the
synchronization of bodies” such as laughing and yawning when other laugh or yawn (de
Waal, 2009). Instinctive, action based conceptualizations of empathy exist (Chen, Chin,
Fung, Wong, & Tsang, 2015; de Waal, 2009; Preston & Waal, 2002) but have not
received the same popularity as the cognitive and affective components, probably due to
the limited amount of research done in comparison to the others. We consider this as
important as the other two dimensions because our instinctual actions are closely related
to how we feel and perceive our world. Just as the mind is made up of three domains, so
is the ability to empathize.
14
Neuroscience has added to the discussion through additional research on mirror neurons
and mirroring, imitation, behavior, suggesting that imitation and empathy are closely
linked.
Engineers would benefit to employ this instinctual ability by putting themselves in the
shoes of their end users. For example, when a highway is constructed, they should visit
the neighborhoods and surrounding areas to get a sensory experience of the place. Or,
when designing a cook stove technology, cook with the people they are designing it for.
These direct interactions will enhance the ability to cognitively and affectively empathize
with the public and assist in the development and design of new products and
infrastructure that help various stakeholders meet their higher needs. The best way to
integrate empathy into engineering practice is through the beginning stages of the design
process when they are identifying user and stakeholder needs, making initial
assumptions, and identifying variables and constraints. Based on conceptualization of
empathy presented above, Figure 7 provides guidelines for some basic ways for engineers
to practice empathy at the beginning of a design project.
Figure 7: Empathy guidelines
15
These are a great place to start practicing empathy. We know that the integration of
empathy into design works and the fields of industrial design and biomedical engineering
provide us a roadmap and examples of empathic success that help to meet people’s higher
needs.
EMPATHY WORKS: EXAMPLES FROM DESIGN AND HEALTHCARE
The integration of empathy into the design process is not new, and has already been
proven to be successful. Designers, such as industrial and graphic designers, already use
empathy in their design process. Empathy is a key aspect of design thinking and informs
the decision making process for companies like IDEO, a design and innovation
consulting firm. Empathy is also foundational to the Stanford Design School which
popularized design thinking and offers classes and workshops to students and the public.
Figure 8: Design thinking process
Design has a history of empathic design application such as the OXO good grips home
products, which will be discussed in more detail below. “Design Thinking” has been
hailed as the contemporary method for responsible, innovative design (Hasso Plattner
Institute of Design, 2013) and is a “… human-centric methodology that integrates
expertise from design, social sciences, engineering, and business. It blends an end-user
16
focus with multidisciplinary collaboration and iterative improvement to produce
innovative products, systems, and services. It is about the creation of, as well as adaptive
use of a body-of-behaviors and values” (Plattner, Meinel & Leifer, 2011). Empathy is
identified as the “centerpiece” of the human centered design process. You work with
empathy to, “… understand people within the context of your design challenge. It is your
effort to understand the way they do things and why, their physical and emotional needs,
how they think about the world and what is meaningful to them” (Hasso Plattner Institute
of Design, 2013).
For example, the OXO Good Grips Company, a home product design company, was
founded on a basis of empathy. The founder of the company, Sam Farber, noticed one
day that his wife had trouble holding a traditional potato peeler because of her arthritis
and wondered why the tool was designed in a way that made it harder for her to use. For
people with arthritis, the struggle to use some products is so intense that it prohibits them
from doing the things they love and therefore prohibits them from reaching the higher
tiers of needs such as belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization of Maslow’s
hierarchy. After experiencing empathy for his wife, Sam saw an opportunity to design
cooking tools that were inclusive of all users and raised the bar of consumer expectations
and performance. The result was a new peeler that is comfortable to hold and designed in
a way that not only makes users with arthritis feel good but also enhances the cooking
experience for all people, thus helping them to feel confidence doing what they love to
do, Figure 9.
17
Figure 9: OXO Good Grips and corresponding metric for meeting needs, defined by Maslow
In addition to design, empathy is an important and highly sought after skill in the medical
field. A lot of research has been done on the importance of empathy in healthcare
(Alligood, 2005; Svenaeus, 2014), on patient – doctor relationships (McLean, 2007) and
empathy training programs, like those from hospitals or companies like Empathetics, are
common. This focus on empathy within healthcare translates into the field of biomedical
engineering, where biomedical engineers design products for healthcare purposes,
including increase quality of life. By empathizing with their users, and truly
understanding them, products such as prosthetics arguably help people reach their highest
needs, including that of self-actualization, becoming what they were meant to be, Figure
10. Aimee Mullins, a record breaking Paralympian, has an awe inspiring TED talk in
which she tells her audience that a prosthetic limb can be a symbol for empowerment, “so
people that society once considered to be disabled can now become the architects of their
own identities and indeed continue to change those identities by designing their bodies
from a place of empowerment” (Mullins, 2009).
Belonging
Physiological
Safety
Esteem
Self
Actualize
18
Figure 10: Prosthetics and corresponding metric for meeting higher needs, defined by Maslow
These examples show us that empathy has the power to transform the way that designs
impact people’s lives and empower them to reach their highest needs and greatest
potential. Empathic approaches to large scale engineering design is uncommon and an
exemplar of empathic design is harder to come by in civil engineering.
CIVIL ENGINEERING CASE STUDY: HOOVER DAM BYPASS
The following section uses the engineering example of the Hoover Dam Bypass to
illustrate the complexity of empathic engineering design and identifies the need for
engineers to adopt an empathic design approach. The Hoover Dam is an American icon
of engineering ingenuity and when completed in 1935 was the world’s largest concrete
structure. It remains the world’s tallest concrete dam in the United States and is
recognized as one of America’s Seven Modern Civil Engineering wonders by the
American Society of Civil Engineers. The US 93, which crosses the Colorado River via
two lane road over the dam, served as a key route between Phoenix and Las Vegas,
between Mexico and Canada for trade, and sees over one million tourists a year. With
this much traffic, it was common for the two lane road to become congested, backed up,
Belonging
Physiological
Safety
Esteem
Self
Actualize
19
and accidents were common. The purpose of need for a bypass was originally indicated
in 1960 but after 9/11 increased security concerns increased the need for the bypass.
The Hoover Dam Bypass, or Mike O’Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge, Figure
11: Hoover Dam & bypass bridge, was completed in October of 2010 and is named after
Pat Tillman, an Arizona State University (ASU) graduate who turned down a
professional football career to enlist in the army and died while serving. Mike
O’Callagahn was a celebrated, former Governor of Nevada who was also a decorated
Korean War veteran. The bridge, being named after two American heroes, gave the
project a spirit of hope, even while construction occurred in the midst of the 2008
recession. Even Bill Dowd, the HDR Project Manager was supportive to say, “There
were so many rewarding aspects of this iconic project – completing the Hoover Dam,
improving habitats, treating Native American sacred sites with respect, and doing all that
while staying within the original budget” (HDR video).
The bridge won a number of awards for its
innovative design, such as the National Council of
Structural Engineers Association’s (NCSEA)
Excellence in Structural Engineering award for
best overall engineering achievement. It is easy to
identify why. The bridge is the western
hemisphere’s highest and longest single span
concrete arch bridge and has been recognized for its innovative design and
complementary aesthetic. The bridge took nearly a century to construct and cost $240
Figure 11: Hoover Dam & bypass bridge
20
million to build. The design and project management stakeholders included HDR, TY
Lin, Jacobs Engineering, in addition to the Federal Highway Administration, Nevada
Department of Transportation, Arizona Department of Transportation, Nevada and
Arizona’s State Historic Preservation Offices, the Bureau of Reclamation, The National
Park Service, the Western Area Power Administration, local citizens, commuters and
Native American tribes including the Southern Paiutes, Hualapai, Apache, Navajo, Zuni,
Hopi and Mohave. The complex web of stakeholders meant multiple perspectives and
values had to be taken into account during the project execution. To account for the
multiple perspectives, project design and management teams often met with one another
and with the governmental agencies to facilitate discussion of project goals and
deliverables. A series of public open houses were organized to gain local stakeholder
perspectives by collecting their input on project alternatives. The Environmental Impact
Assessment was conducted with three primary build site locations in mind (Promotory
Point, Goldstrike Hotsprings and Sugarloaf Mountain) to guarantee that environmental
and cultural impacts were properly and responsibly addressed. In addition, local Native
American tribes were consulted, included in meeting proceedings and included in
ethnographic studies to understand their build location preference.
After almost a decade of construction, impressive engineering ingenuity, and complex
project management, the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge would be completed in October of
2010. The bridge is the seventh highest in the world, the longest arch bridge in the
Western Hemisphere, and contains 16 million pounds of steel, 30,000 cubic yards of
21
concrete and two million feet of cable. There is no denying that it is an impressive
structure (Disovery, 2013).
However, this technical success was also a failure to empathize. Although all
perspectives were seemingly accounted for, a closer look into the literature shows that
some perspectives were underrepresented. The bridge helped many of the stakeholders,
such as the engineers and commuters, to reach the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy
but did so at the expense of Native American populations. Tradeoffs and constraints are
inevitable in all designs. However, the goal and first canon of engineering ethics states
that is the responsibility to hold paramount the welfare, safety and health of the public
and should be taken as the dominating constraint. Based on this, it is also the
responsibility of the engineers to consider and empathize with all sectors of the
population that they serve, even when the perspectives are not favorable. The Native
American perspective and voice on where the bridge should have been built were not
well received by project managers.
It was promising that money had been budgeted for a team of ethnographers to do a study
to understand the Native American perspectives and that this information is included in
the EIA, but the report was not well received by the other agencies and firms involved in
the project. Native American Populations had not been involved in the decision making
process until three potential build sites had already been chosen and the project was well-
underway. However, when the finalized EIA came back, the findings suggested that the
Native Americans should have been involved years earlier in the process when more
22
alternatives were available for consideration. The three alternative sites being studied
were all within the ceremonial cultural landscape shared by the Halapai and Paiute
people. However, if the project was to continue despite the fact that the tribes felt like
they had been, “eclipsed and left out of the process”, it was determined that of the three
sites, the Sugarloaf Mountain site was the least acceptable, as it was the center of the
greater ceremonial area, and Promontory Point was most acceptable (Stoffle, Zedeno,
Eisenberg, Toupal, & Carroll, 2004).
After these results were reported, the ethnographic team’s methods and objectivity were
challenged, and despite the evidence, scientists at the BOR and NPS believed nothing
culturally or archaeologically significant was present at any of these locations (Stoffle et
al., 2004). In 2000 another Native American consultation was initiated because of new
federal regulations and a desire to clarify the first ethnographic study. The conclusions of
this study supported the findings of the initial ethnographic report and made the
recommendation that Sugarloaf Mountain and Goldstrike Hot Springs be nominated for a
traditional cultural property (TCP), which would preserve the physical properties
associated with the space (National Park Service). However, by the time the TCP
nomination was sent in for evaluation, the record of decision had already declared that
the bridge would be built at Sugar Loaf Mountain and one of the lead engineers requested
the further delay of the TCP nomination so it would not interfere with the construction
schedule (Stoffle et al., 2004). Therefore, the Native American perspective was no longer
included in the decision and assessment of where to place to bridge.
23
Although project leaders commissioned ethnographic studies to understand the impact the
bridge would have on the local Native American populations and their cultural sites, the
eventual design showed little consideration of the concerns that were revealed. The
technical stakeholders failed to empathize with the Native American populations in order
to come to a compromise or alternative agreement. By failing to empathize with the
Native American populations the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge did not successfully reach
the belonging or esteem needs for the Native American Populations despite the fact that
the native populations are part of the public in which the engineers serve. To be fair, the
bridge does provides a safer alternative to the switchbacks and two lane road that crossed
the highway prior to its construction, and you will find positive reviews on Yelp and Trip
Advisor from tourists and history buffs who enjoy the engineering marvel. However, if
the ethical duty of the engineer, especially, the civil engineer is to hold paramount the
health, safety and welfare of the public, this needs to be inclusive of all the public voices,
especially those that are traditionally underrepresented. And, for the engineers to
empathize with the Native American tribes would not guarantee that the technical
stakeholders do what the Native American populations wanted. In fact, the bridge still
may have been built in the same location if an empathic design approach was involved.
However, to empathize with the Native Americans, to apply the pluralistic framework by
going out on site with the archeologists and ethnographers, if even for a day to practice
conative empathy, have spoken to the tribes directly about their decisions and allowed
themselves to cognitively process how they could have better respected their sacred and
cultural space, the result may have been a better relationship with the native American
24
community, a bridge constructed at Promotory Point or in an alternate location altogether,
or not at all.
There are clearly many stakeholders involved in the engineering design process but
engineers still have a responsibility to empathize with their end users and the various
sections of the public. This means compromise, collaboration, respect and
acknowledgement which in turn helps engineers to better meet the higher needs of
society in which they serve.
BRINGING IT TOGETHER: ETHICS, EMPATHY AND ENGINEERING DESIGN
Engineers are increasingly being called on to use their skills to help solve complex global
problems (Academies, 2006; Unesco, 2010) which include social justice and
sustainability factors. Engineering has traditionally been viewed as a technical field,
where social welfare concerns decrease as engineering students progress in their
programs (Cech, 2013). However, there is no denying that engineering is intimately
connected to people’s welfare and many scholars identify that it is the primary job of an
engineer to be a servant to society (Schmidt, 2014) and take into account the welfare of
Figure 12: Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge and metric for meeting human needs, defined by Maslow
Belonging
Physiological
Safety
Esteem
Self
Actualize
25
the public (Colby & Sullivan, 2008). Currently, the engineering codes of ethics provide
engineers with a deontological toolset that helps to guide their designs. According to the
National Society of Professional Engineer’s code of ethics, it is the responsibility to the
engineering to hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public. As a result of
following these guidelines, engineers have excelled at designing safe products and
infrastructure that meet people’s basic needs. However, even these safe engineering
design fail to meet the higher needs identified in Maslow’s hierarchy such as belonging,
esteem and self-actualization. The examples of the freeway and cook stoves show us that
for some populations, the designs fail to take into account the end user or impacted
party’s welfare. Engineering ethics provide engineering designs with an important design
base, however, in order to help more stakeholders reach the higher tiers of Maslow’s
hierarchy, we argued that an empathic approach to engineering design, based on the
pluralistic conceptualization of empathy as a conative, affective and cognitive ability, is
necessary to help meet the higher needs of the various stakeholders engineers interact
with. The fields of design and medicine have found success in the integration of empathy
into the design process and the more traditional engineering fields, such as civil
engineering, can learn from this process. In fact, engineers who have the ability to act as
their users act, think as the thing and feel as they feel will be better equipped to handle
global, system scale problems.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This paper argues for an empathic approach to engineering design using examples from
engineering ethics, design, biomedical engineering, and civil engineering. It explores a
case study of the Hoover Dam Bypass. In an effort to understand the multiple
26
perspectives of the case study, two phone calls were made to David Goodyear, the lead
bridge engineer at Ty Lin, and Richard Stoffle, the lead archaeologist of the first
ethnographic report. This paper does not explicitly include these perspectives because no
human subjects review took place, but the calls helped to inform the case study by
making sure the complexity was identified and that it was fair to all parties involved.
This paper also focused on the welfare of the impacted parties and end user perspectives,
which are different from the client or designer perspectives. Although this paper is not a
traditional research paper, it does contribute to existing literature and future directions in
engineering ethics, design and practice by making the following key contributions:
1. Ethical – It is clear that ethics play an important role in how engineers conduct
themselves in practice. Although it appears that the health, safety and welfare of
the public equate to structural soundness, there is a need to expand the scope of
these definitions, especially the definition of welfare. This new definition should
be inclusive of empathy, and of contemporary populations that include the needs
presented in Maslow’s hierarchy such as belonging, esteem and self-actualization.
2. Heuristic Significance – This paper provides a unique view of the integration of
empathy into engineering design, and hopes to inspire additional research on
empathy and engineering, in addition to studies into how empathy can benefit
complex design processes. More research will need to be done to better
understand how large scale projects can best utilize empathy in practice due to the
scale difference between products and civil systems.
3. Practice – This paper provides a set of basic engineering empathy guidelines and
suggestions of how empathy can be used in professional practice or as a lens
27
through which to frame and guide case study analysis and ethics education
curriculum development.
4. Methodological contribution – This paper also introduces a way for engineers to
use dialogue and interaction with end users as an important means of creating a
shared narrative by introducing ethnographic contributions to large projects and
using interviews and dialogue as a way to cultivate affective empathy for
stakeholders.
28
REFERENCES
Academies, N. (2006). The Engineer of 2020. doi:10.17226/10999
Adams, E. A., Antaya, C. L., Seager, T. P., & Landis, A. E. (2014). Improving learning
productivity and teamwork skills in freshman engineering students through conative
understanding. American Society for Engineering Education, (January 2012).
Adams, E. A., Gilbert, C., & College, C. (2012). Improving engineering student
preparedness , persistence , and diversity through conative understanding.
Alligood, M. R. (2005). Rethinking Empathy in Nursing Education: Shifting to a
Developmental View. Annual REview of Nursing Education, 3, 299–309.
Apperly, I. A. (2012). EPS Prize Lecture What is “ theory of mind ”? Concepts ,
cognitive processes and individual differences. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 825–839.
Batson, C. D. (1994). Why Act for the Public Good? Four Answers. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 603–610. doi:10.1177/0146167294205016
Batson, C. D. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner ’ s dilemma II : what if the
target of empathy has defected ?, 36(January 2000), 25–36.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C.,
Bednar, L. L., … Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a
member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.72.1.105
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review.
Cech, E. a. (2013). Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education? Science,
Technology & Human Values, 39(1), 42–72. doi:10.1177/0162243913504305
Chen, J. Y., Chin, W. Y., Fung, C. S. C., Wong, C. K. H., & Tsang, J. P. Y. (2015).
Medical Education Online, 1, 1–6.
Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics Teaching in Undergraduate Engineering
Education, (July).
Davis, M. (1996). Defining “engineering:” How to do it and why it matters. Journal of
Engineering Education, 85(2), 97–101. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1996.tb00217.x
de Waal, F. (2009). The Age of Empathy.
Disovery. (2013). Expansive Hoover Dam Bridge Opens. Retrieved from
29
http://news.discovery.com/tech/hoover-dam-bridge.htm
Encyclopaedia, & Britancia. (2016). Adjustment. In Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban
Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80(4), 536–55.
doi:10.1093/jurban/jtg063
Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Brüne, M. (2013). Towards a
neuroscience of empathy: Ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and
psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1537–1548.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001
Hanna, R., Duflo, E., & Greenstone, M. (2012). Up in smoke: the influence of household
behavior on the long-run impact of improved cooking stoves. National Bureau of
Economic Research, No. w18033(September), 1–34. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2039004
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (2013). An introduction to Design Thinking, 1–15.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4302-6182-7_1
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development. Development, 348.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511805851
Hogan, R. (1969). DEVELOPMENT OF AN EMPATHY SCALE 1, 33(3), 307–316.
Hursthouse, R. (2013). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue/>.
Ivtzan, I., Gardner, H. E., Bernard, I., Sekhon, M., & Hart, R. (2013). Wellbeing through
Self-Fulfilment: Examining Developmental Aspects of Self-Actualization. The
Humanistic Psychologist, 41(2), 119–132. doi:10.1080/08873267.2012.712076
Krznaric, R. (2008). How Empathy Education Can Create Social Change, (July).
Krznaric, R. (2014). Empathy. Penguin Group.
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, a S. (2004). Measuring
empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychological Medicine,
34(5), 911–919. doi:10.1017/S0033291703001624
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Classics in the History of
Psychology.
McDonagh, D., Hekkert, P., van Erp, J., & Gyi, D. (2004). Design and Emotion. CRC
Press.
McLean, J. (2007). Psychotherapy with a Narcissistic Patient Using Kohut’s Self
30
Psychology Model. Psychiatry (Edgmont (Pa. : Township)), 4(10), 40–47.
Mehrabian, a, & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of
Personality, 40(4), 525–543. doi:10.1086/521907
Mehrabian, A., Young, A., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy and associated
individual differences. Current Psychology, 7(3), 221–240.
Michelfelder, D., & Jones, S. A. (2013). Sustaining Engineering Codes of Ethics for the
Twenty-First Century. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 237–258.
doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9310-2
Mullins, A. (2009). My 12 Pairs of Legs. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_prosthetic_aesthetics?language=en
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 11, 544.
doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2
Powers, K. E., Worsham, A. L., Freeman, J. B., Wheatley, T., & Heatherton, T. F.
(2014). Social Connection Modulates Perceptions of Animacy. Psychological
Science, 25(10), 1943–1948. doi:10.1177/0956797614547706
Preston, S. D., & Waal, F. B. M. De. (2002). Empathy : Its ultimate and proximate bases,
1–71.
Prinz, J. J. (2007). Can Moral Obligations Be Empirically Discovered? Midwest Studies
in Philosophy, 31(1), 271–291. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00148.x
Pyszczynski, T., & Kesebir, P. (2013). An existential perspective on the need for self-
esteem. Self-Esteem, 124–144. doi:10.4324/9780203587874
Rifkin, J. (2009). The Empathic Civilization. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2005). Mirror neuron: a neurological approach to
empathy. Neurobiology of Human Values, 107–123. doi:10.1007/3-540-29803-7_9
Rober, J. (2014). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved from <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant-moral/>.
Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional Engineers: Toward Morally Responsible Design. Science
and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 103–115. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9236-0
Schmidt, J. A. (2014). Changing the Paradigm for Engineering Ethics. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 985–1010. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9491-y
Stoffle, R., Zedeno, N., Eisenberg, A., Toupal, R., & Carroll, A. (2004). Shifting Risks:
Hoover Dam Bridge Impacts on American Indian Sacred Landscapes. In Facility
31
Siting: Risk, Power, and Identity in Land Use Planning (pp. 127–143).
Strobel, J., Hess, J., Pan, R., & Wachter Morris, C. A. (2013). Empathy and care within
engineering: qualitative perspectives from engineering faculty and practicing
engineers. Engineering Studies, 5(2), 137–159. doi:10.1080/19378629.2013.814136
Svenaeus, F. (2014). Empathy as a necessary condition of phronesis: a line of thought for
medical ethics. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 17(2), 293–9.
doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9487-z
Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V, Richeson, J. a, & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Perspective
taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100(6), 1027–42. doi:10.1037/a0022308
Unesco. (2010). Engineering : Issues Challenges and Opportunities for Development.
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189753e.pdf
van der Burg, S., & van Gorp, A. (2005). Understanding moral responsibility in the
design of trailers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 235–56. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15915862
Wan Abdul Rahman, W. A., & Castelli, P. A. (2013). The Impact of Empathy on
Leadership Effectiveness among Business Leaders in the United States and
Malaysia. International Journal of Economics, Business, and Management Studies,
2(3), 83–97. Retrieved from
https://phstwlp1.partners.org:2443/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T
=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc8&AN=2013-99211-084
Weingroff, R. (2015). The Greatest Decade 1956-1966. Retrieved from
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50interstate2.cfm
Wetmore, J. (2012). The value of the social sciences for maximizing the public benefits
of engineering. The Bridge, 42(3), 40–45. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004