of engineers. A pilot survey involving 30 randomly
sampled respondents was conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the questionnaire in meeting the objectives of the study, and whether the questions selected
represent the personal ethical perception under study,
and to ascertain whether the target respondents could
understand and interpret the questions. The respondents were requested to be honest when filling in
the survey and were informed that they had the right
to rescind their participation in the survey at any
time. They were assured of the confidentiality of their
answers, and that their responses would be used for
research purposes only. The obtained pilot survey
results indicated that the questionnaire could assure
validity, trustworthiness, and reliability of the results.
After the pilot survey was completed, the actual
survey was conducted (n = 164) examining the personal ethical perception of the first-year and fifth-year
Moi University, School of Engineering students, and
practicing engineers. The students were all enrolled
in respective courses during a semester where professional ethics was taught. The first sample response
gathered was 79 out of a population of 260 first-year
students following the Introduction to Engineering
Profession & Safety – a common course offered in all
the six engineering programs during the first semester
of the 2019/2020 academic year. The second sample
response was gathered of 41 out of a population of 45
fifth-year students following the Law, Ethics & Professional Practice course during the second and the final
semester in the 2019/2020 academic year in the Civil
and Structural Engineering program. In the fifth-year
course case studies one pedagogical approach is used
in delivery. The third sample response of 44 practicing engineers who attended a seminar on continuous
professional development (CPD) was sampled from
the Institution of Engineers of Kenya (IEK), western
branch data base. The sample size of 164 respondents
was adopted based on an estimated large population of
5,000 engineering students and practicing engineers in
the IEK western branch, to allow the study to determine the personal ethical perception with a confidence
interval of ±7.5%.
The questionnaire used was developed in Google
Form (Kuczenski 2013) and consisted of a list of sixteen acts that were developed by (Stappenbelt 2012) by
adopting a set of twelve from the study by (O’Clock
& Okleshen 1993). Whereby respondents examined
their personal ethical beliefs in light of the professional
ethics requirements of the EBK code (EBK 2016). The
sixteen acts were as follows:
1. Accepting gifts or favours in exchange for preferential treatment
2. Undertaking work in an area in which you are not
competent
3. Passing blame for errors to an innocent colleague
4. Not supporting a colleague who is trying to do the
right thing
5. Giving gifts or favours in exchange for preferential
treatment
6. Claiming credit for someone else’s work
7. Not reporting others’ violation of organization
policies
8. Divulging confidential information
9. Withholding relevant information from a colleague
or client
10. Calling in sick to take a day off
11. Pilfering organization material and supplies
12. Doing personal business on organization time
13. Not keeping up to date with the latest developments
in your area
14. Concealing one’s errors
15. Taking extra personal time (lunch hour, breaks,
early departure)
16. Using organization services for personal use
The survey measured how respondents perceive
their own ethical beliefs and how they perceive the
ethical beliefs and actions of their peers. In the survey,
participants were to rank the sixteen unethical acts on
a five-point Likert scale with (1) being very unethical
and (5) not being unethical at all. The ranking, given
in the list below, was both in terms of their personal
beliefs and their perceptions towards the actions of
their peers.
1. Very unethical
2. Basically unethical
3. Somewhat unethical
4. Not particularly unethical
5. Not at all unethical
After familiarization with the EBK code, respondents were also invited to comment regarding their
beliefs in adherence to the code. Also, data relating
to personal details were collected in the survey: age,
gender, religion, and professional class.
The survey was presented to the three sets of respondents after a presentation and discussion of ethics in
the classroom/seminar. The intentions of the study was
first introduced to the students, they were then asked
to respond anonymously, and were assured that the
responses would only be taken en masse and could
not affect their grades. The practicing engineers were
briefed on the study after a seminar on CPD organized
by IEK western branch held on 29th February 2020
in Eldoret, Kenya. The same survey that was set to
receive only one response per respondent was given
online via Google Form (Kuczenski 2013) to the three
sets of samples separately.
The respective student’s class representative circulated the survey questionnaire through their respective
class social media and e-mail platforms and the students had a maximum of two days after class to
fill and submit the questioner online. The survey
questionnaire was circulated to the practicing engineers using their respective e-mails captured during
registration for attendance of the seminar. The procedure used ensured that all the respondents were
surveyed anonymously with only time stamp information collected. Although the questionnaire consisted of
many questions, every respondent participated willingly as the subject seemed to be of wide interest.
However, a general limitation attributed to survey
5
sampled respondents was conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the questionnaire in meeting the objectives of the study, and whether the questions selected
represent the personal ethical perception under study,
and to ascertain whether the target respondents could
understand and interpret the questions. The respondents were requested to be honest when filling in
the survey and were informed that they had the right
to rescind their participation in the survey at any
time. They were assured of the confidentiality of their
answers, and that their responses would be used for
research purposes only. The obtained pilot survey
results indicated that the questionnaire could assure
validity, trustworthiness, and reliability of the results.
After the pilot survey was completed, the actual
survey was conducted (n = 164) examining the personal ethical perception of the first-year and fifth-year
Moi University, School of Engineering students, and
practicing engineers. The students were all enrolled
in respective courses during a semester where professional ethics was taught. The first sample response
gathered was 79 out of a population of 260 first-year
students following the Introduction to Engineering
Profession & Safety – a common course offered in all
the six engineering programs during the first semester
of the 2019/2020 academic year. The second sample
response was gathered of 41 out of a population of 45
fifth-year students following the Law, Ethics & Professional Practice course during the second and the final
semester in the 2019/2020 academic year in the Civil
and Structural Engineering program. In the fifth-year
course case studies one pedagogical approach is used
in delivery. The third sample response of 44 practicing engineers who attended a seminar on continuous
professional development (CPD) was sampled from
the Institution of Engineers of Kenya (IEK), western
branch data base. The sample size of 164 respondents
was adopted based on an estimated large population of
5,000 engineering students and practicing engineers in
the IEK western branch, to allow the study to determine the personal ethical perception with a confidence
interval of ±7.5%.
The questionnaire used was developed in Google
Form (Kuczenski 2013) and consisted of a list of sixteen acts that were developed by (Stappenbelt 2012) by
adopting a set of twelve from the study by (O’Clock
& Okleshen 1993). Whereby respondents examined
their personal ethical beliefs in light of the professional
ethics requirements of the EBK code (EBK 2016). The
sixteen acts were as follows:
1. Accepting gifts or favours in exchange for preferential treatment
2. Undertaking work in an area in which you are not
competent
3. Passing blame for errors to an innocent colleague
4. Not supporting a colleague who is trying to do the
right thing
5. Giving gifts or favours in exchange for preferential
treatment
6. Claiming credit for someone else’s work
7. Not reporting others’ violation of organization
policies
8. Divulging confidential information
9. Withholding relevant information from a colleague
or client
10. Calling in sick to take a day off
11. Pilfering organization material and supplies
12. Doing personal business on organization time
13. Not keeping up to date with the latest developments
in your area
14. Concealing one’s errors
15. Taking extra personal time (lunch hour, breaks,
early departure)
16. Using organization services for personal use
The survey measured how respondents perceive
their own ethical beliefs and how they perceive the
ethical beliefs and actions of their peers. In the survey,
participants were to rank the sixteen unethical acts on
a five-point Likert scale with (1) being very unethical
and (5) not being unethical at all. The ranking, given
in the list below, was both in terms of their personal
beliefs and their perceptions towards the actions of
their peers.
1. Very unethical
2. Basically unethical
3. Somewhat unethical
4. Not particularly unethical
5. Not at all unethical
After familiarization with the EBK code, respondents were also invited to comment regarding their
beliefs in adherence to the code. Also, data relating
to personal details were collected in the survey: age,
gender, religion, and professional class.
The survey was presented to the three sets of respondents after a presentation and discussion of ethics in
the classroom/seminar. The intentions of the study was
first introduced to the students, they were then asked
to respond anonymously, and were assured that the
responses would only be taken en masse and could
not affect their grades. The practicing engineers were
briefed on the study after a seminar on CPD organized
by IEK western branch held on 29th February 2020
in Eldoret, Kenya. The same survey that was set to
receive only one response per respondent was given
online via Google Form (Kuczenski 2013) to the three
sets of samples separately.
The respective student’s class representative circulated the survey questionnaire through their respective
class social media and e-mail platforms and the students had a maximum of two days after class to
fill and submit the questioner online. The survey
questionnaire was circulated to the practicing engineers using their respective e-mails captured during
registration for attendance of the seminar. The procedure used ensured that all the respondents were
surveyed anonymously with only time stamp information collected. Although the questionnaire consisted of
many questions, every respondent participated willingly as the subject seemed to be of wide interest.
However, a general limitation attributed to survey
5