Sergio Guillen Grillo

This paper explores the contribution that a situated and competency-layering pedagogy can offer to enhance the effectiveness of Giving Voice to Values (GVV), a growing model for teaching ethical leadership in engineering, business, law, and other professional fields. The uptake of GVV as a framework for ethical leadership practice and education has had a growing influence in business school curricula, and more recently, in engineering ethics education. GVV is an innovative model that bridges ethical decision-making and ethical action by preparing learners to develop scripts and action plans for acting consistently with their values in ethically challenging scenarios. The approach moves away from discussing what the right action would be according to different ethical normative frameworks, and instead starts from the premise that most people are able to recognize the right course of action that is consistent with their values, and want to pursue it; however, they have difficulties acting accordingly. Central to this learning model is the application of a thought experiment framed as: “Assuming I know what I want to do to act on my values, how can I get it done?” The capacity to bridge the space between decision and action is strengthened by reflection about past experiences and each person’s specific style and personality. [Department Name] at [University Name] is currently applying the GVV model in its undergraduate engineering ethics courses. The developer of the GVV framework has stated that the model’s use of the notion of “moral muscle memory” draws in part from the pedagogical approach to layering the physical, emotional, and cognitive abilities to respond to situations of violence that were developed within the Impact or Empowered Self Defense method of gender violence prevention. The authors, faculty members of the Department of Engineering & Society at the University of Virginia are proposing a Situated Ethical Action Framework (SEAF) described in this paper to enhance the development of engineering students’ competencies for responding to ethical predicaments. SEAF draws on both conflict resolution process design methods and on elements of layering derived from the Empowered Self Defense pedagogy. It introduces additional scenario-building and response-planning strategies that can enhance the stepwise rehearsal experience of the learner, and therefore their sense of self-efficacy in applying the GVV framework. The proposed innovation incorporates two additional elements: concentric circles of engagement and stepwise rehearsal of interactions. Concentric circles of engagement involve different centers of focus and degrees of involvement of others in the learner’s process of ethical decision-making and action, which expand from an internal cognitive space where the dilemma is acknowledged and analyzed, to preliminary interactions with trusted others to better understand the issue, to assessing organizational cultures and stakes, to ultimately engaging with others to raise concerns and seek alternatives. Stepwise rehearsal of interactions includes a breakdown of the steps necessary to engage with others at each of these circles, from preparing to frame concerns to scripting difficult conversations. This paper presents the pedagogical foundations for this revised approach and preliminary insights from its early application in an undergraduate course.

AI’s rapid expansion is transforming ecological systems and public life faster than our collective ability to examine its impacts or make legitimate decisions about its regulation. Yet public discussion about AI continues to exhibit significant discursive ambiguity regarding its purposes, beneficiaries, and accountability. In contrast, Environmental Justice represents a strongly networked global movement with a clear normative intent to confront systemic environmental violence. This essay proposes two complementary mapping efforts for reimagining AI through this lens: a discursive cartography that clarifies how diverse perspectives and agendas surrounding AI can be situated within broader environmental discourses, and a deliberative cartography that identifies the sites and processes where shared understanding and consequential decision‑making about AI must occur. Together, these efforts can support more just and accountable governance.