Abstract
A key phrase in discipline findings of professional misconduct is "The engineer knew or ought to have known". By virtue of being members of the engineering profession, Engineers are expected to demonstrate both technical competence and professionalism. The three cases in this paper look at professionalism from the standpoint of trust from the perspective of the regulator, the client, and peers.When that trust is broken, complaints against the engineer can ensue and unless the member has worked with the investigation committee or been investigated before, it is unlikely that they would know the disciplinary process and the scope within which they operate.This paper is aimed at fostering classroom discussions about the ethical situations Engineering Interns could find themselves in and offers ideas on how the investigation/discipline process can be brought to the classroom.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
