Track Report – Teaching Computer Ethics - Joint Presentation to the Conference - The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Keith Miller

Joint Presentation to the Conference

The four subgroups of the teaching track displayed a wealth of perspectives, opinions, emphases, and approaches in their separate discussions. When the large group met, it was clear that no consensus opinions were likely to be hammered out in any reasonable length of time. The track coordinator resisted boiling down this rich mix of contraction and learning-in-process into a linear 20 minute speech by the coordinator. A majority (albeit it a slim one) of the track participants eventually agreed to trying something different for the track’s presentation to the conference on Friday morning.

The “something different” required a list of issues and contentions culled from the discussions of the subgroups. Illona Maruszak and Penelope Karovsky compiled and edited this list, and served as moderators of the presentation to the conference. When discussing this list, we found that three themes reoccured in each group’s discussions: pedagogy (How should we teach computer ethics?), philosophy (What is computer ethics?) and power (How do power relationships effect computer ethics?). A pair of people volunteered to represent each perspective:

Pedagogy:
Judith Edgmand and Don Gotterbarn

Philosophy:
Peter Limper and Jim Moor

Power:
Keith Miller and Carolyne Tropper

During the presentation, the list of 20 issues was available to the conference attendees. The moderators read a selection of the issues, and each of the three perspectives could comment on each issue read. On some issues, each perspective had a comment, and on others only one or two perspectives had comment. During the comments, Batya Friedman tracked the course of the comments on a graphic she created that portrayed the three perspectives and their intersections. Thus, as the comments proceeded, there was a visual presentation of how a particular issue was or was not significant to each perspective.

The list (given below) was available to the commentators on Thursday, but the comments given were a mixture of prepared statements and immediate responses. The handouts given to the conference attendees included the following information:

INTRODUCTION
The format of our presentation is based on three questions:
1.	What?	Identify an aspect of teaching computing and values.
2.	So what?	Explain why this aspect is important.
3.	Now what?	Suggest concrete actions to improve this aspect.

As we reviewed notes from our subgroups’ brainstorming sessions, we found that issues seemed to fit under three broad headings that we call the three P’

s: Pedagogy, Philosophy, and Power. Each perspective is represented by one of the three chairs you see on the stage. The moderators will present a particular what (some aspect of teaching computing and values), and that will invoke comment from the chairs concerning the so what and now what of that aspect.

LIST OF WHATS

1. What are the values we are trying to teach?
2. Technology may be a vehicle for positive social change and empowerment.
3. There is a need for teaching materials, for intellectual tools concerned with ethics and values in the field of computer science.
4. How do we cope with the fact that we can do more technologically than we can manage as human beings?
5. Introduce students to moral theory, but be careful of two pitfalls: paralysis of analysis and continued debate without convergence.
6. Does an ethicist have any control over the computer science curriculum?
7. Should ethics be integrated into existing computer science curricula, taught separately, or both?
8. Is computer ethics different from business ethics or engineering ethics?
9. Technology requires us to question traditional definitions of terms.
10. How do political and economic forces influence development and use of technologies?
11. How could we involve users in the design, selection, and implementation of computers and software?
12. Is it the responsibility of the computer scientist to educate individuals using the products of computer technology?
13. “Don’t kill the poets.” We need to distinguish between which problems are and are not technological.
14. How do we support an ethical environment that empowers faculty and students?
15. Dilemma of unenforceable rules regarding computer use.
16. Should the user have the opportunity to give informed consent related to computer use?
17. Effective ways to introduce topics on ethics and values include: scenarios, role playing, visiting speaker implementing a system.
18. If a computer science curriculum in ethics and values is more rigorous, will student involvement decrease?
19. How much of the following content should be presented to computer science majors: participatory management, change process and leadership?
20. It is important to remember that computers and software embody values.

Back to the top

Go to: Coordinator’s Summary

Home > Teaching Resources > Teaching Computer Ethics > Appendix

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society