Fulltext

The teaching of computer ethics on computer science and related degree
programmes. a European survey
Downloaded from: https://research.chalmers.se, 2023-11-18 12:11 UTC
Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Stavrakakis, I., Gordon, D., Tierney, B. et al (2021). The teaching of computer ethics on computer
science and related degree programmes. a European
survey. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS EDUCATION, In Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40889-021-00135-1
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
research.chalmers.se offers the possibility of retrieving research publications produced at Chalmers University of Technology.
It covers all kind of research output: articles, dissertations, conference papers, reports etc. since 2004.
research.chalmers.se is administrated and maintained by Chalmers Library
(article starts on next page)

International Journal of Ethics Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-021-00135-1
The teaching of computer ethics on computer science

and related degree programmes. a European survey
Ioannis Stavrakakis1 · Damian Gordon1 · Brendan Tierney1 ·

Anna Becevel1 · Emma Murphy1 · Gordana Dodig‑Crnkovic2 · Radu Dobrin3 ·
Viola Schiaffonati4 · Cristina Pereira5 · Svetlana Tikhonenko5 · J. Paul Gibson6 ·
Stephane Maag6 · Francesco Agresta7 · Andrea Curley1 · Michael Collins1 ·
Dympna O’Sullivan1
Accepted: 24 August 2021

© The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Within the Computer Science community, many ethical issues have emerged as
significant and critical concerns. Computer ethics is an academic field in its own
right and there are unique ethical issues associated with information technology. It
encompasses a range of issues and concerns including privacy and agency around
personal information, Artificial Intelligence and pervasive technology, the Internet
of Things and surveillance applications. As computing technology impacts society
at an ever growing pace, there are growing calls for more computer ethics content
to be included in Computer Science curricula. In this paper we present the results
of a survey that polled faculty from Computer Science and related disciplines about
teaching practices for computer ethics at their institutions. The survey was com-
pleted by respondents from 61 universities across 23 European countries. Partici-
pants were surveyed on whether or not computer ethics is taught to Computer Sci-
ence students at each institution, the reasons why computer ethics is or is not taught,
how computer ethics is taught, the background of staff who teach computer ethics
and the scope of computer ethics curricula. This paper presents and discusses the
results of the survey.
Keywords Ethics · Computer Ethics · Teaching Computer Ethics · Computer

Science Education
* Ioannis Stavrakakis
[email protected]
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
I. Stavrakakis et al.
Introduction
Computers and technological applications are now central to many aspects of life
and society, from industry and commerce, government, research, education, medi-
cine, communication, and entertainment systems. Computer Scientists and pro-
fessionals from related disciplines who design and develop computer applications
have a significant responsibility as the systems they develop can have wide ranging
impacts on society where those impacts can be beneficial but may also at times be
negative. The last decade has seen rapid technological growth and innovation, with
the realities of Artificial Intelligence technology and related applications coming to
fruition. Increasingly there is a sense that we are developing technology faster than
we are assessing its moral and ethical implications.
Computer ethics, defined as “the analysis of the nature and social impact of com-
puter technology and the corresponding formulation and justification of policies for
the ethical use of such technology” (Moor, 1985, p.266), has a long history, dating
back to the works of Wiener on Cybernetics almost 70 years ago. Over the years
many variations of the term computer ethics have entered the literature including
computing ethics, information ethics, informatics ethics, ICT Ethics, IT ethics and
ethics of information systems (Stahl et al., 2016). These terms reflect the widespread
and increasingly pervasive use and impacts of computing technology in all areas of
society such as education, transportation, governance and so on (Dodig-Crnkovic,
2003).
As such, in this paper we use the term “computer ethics” as a broad term to
encompass a wide range of topics related to computer technology and ethics, includ-
ing computing ethics, information ethics, informatics ethics, ICT Ethics, IT ethics
and ethics of information systems. Despite the long history of computer ethics and
many academic discussions on the topic, professional ethics for designers and devel-
opers of computer technology are less well developed than for those in other fields
such as medical, legal and business and engineering ethics. Computer Science is
still a relatively young and still evolving discipline. Furthermore, the ethical ques-
tions faced by Computer Scientists are often more nuanced than those faced by other
professions. For example, in Engineering education, the classic ethical case stud-
ies depict losses of life or injury as a result of ethical lapses in these fields. e.g. the
Ford Pinto fires or the collapse of the Hyatt walkway in Kansas City. While some
Computer Scientists build safety critical systems, many others develop systems that
are non-critical from a safety perspective, but at the same time have wide societal
impacts. For example, commercial and government systems such social media plat-
forms, predictive analytics for consumer behaviours or surveillance technologies.
Some of the impacts of such systems are intended, for example, to encourage online
consumers to purchase goods or services or to automate human-centric tasks. How-
ever, unintended consequences of new technologies are becoming increasingly obvi-
ous—code developed for one purpose in a specific system can be reused in another
system where it could different or even ethical consequences. These consequences
have increasingly come into public view, for example, how data harvested illegally
from social media platforms was used to influence voters in elections in the US and
13
The teaching of computer ethics on computer science and related…
the UK or how automated decision making software displayed gender and racial
biases when shortlisting applicants for jobs.
As such it is important that graduates of Computer Science and related pro-
grammes are equipped to consider the ethical dimensions of the technology they
will design and develop in their professional lives. It is becoming more common-
place for institutions to prioritize integrating computer ethics into their Computer
Science curricula so students don’t just learn about how to build software, but also
they learn how to analyse the potential negative consequences of any software they
design and build. Finally, with more and more countries introducing computing into
school curricula (Passey, 2017; Sentance & Csizmadia, 2017) with the aim of creat-
ing a whole new learning culture (Brodnik & Lewin, 2017), Computer Science will
come to play an even more important role in all levels of education, thus making
computer ethics an imperative field of knowledge for all educators.
In this paper we outline the results of a large scale survey of European academics
about existing competencies in the teaching of computer ethics in Computer Science
and related disciplines (Ethics4EU, 2021). The survey was completed by respond-
ents from 61 universities across 23 European countries. Respondents were surveyed
on whether or not computer ethics is taught to Computer Science students at each
institution, the reasons why computer ethics is or is not taught, how computer ethics
is taught (for example, as a standalone course or embedded within other modules),
the background of staff who teach computer ethics and the scope of computer ethics
curricula. Data was also gathered on teaching and learning methods used (theory,
case studies, practical work) and how computer ethics is assessed. The survey was
conducted as part of an Erasmus + project, Ethics4EU that is focused on developing
new computer ethics curricula and learning materials for faculty teaching Computer
Science. The aim of the survey was to provide a comprehensive insight into teaching
practices for computer ethics in Computer Science and related disciplines which will
be used to guide the development of new teaching and learning resources.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present a
literature review about the teaching of computer ethics in Computer Science. In Sec-
tion 3 we present our survey methodology. In Section 4 we present and discuss the
finding from our survey. We conclude with a discussion in Section 5.
Literature review
Computer ethics have been the subject of academic research for many years. In The
Human Use of Human Beings (Wiener, 1950), Wiener wrote about how computers
have the potential to drastically alter the communication mechanisms and therefore
transform the fabric of societies namely social policies, law, the economy and per-
sonal relationships. The issues he identified in included topics that are still impor-
tant today: computers and security, computers and unemployment, responsibilities
of computer professionals, computers for persons with disabilities, information net-
works and globalization, virtual communities, teleworking, merging of human bod-
ies with machines, robot ethics, artificial intelligence, computers and religion, and a
number of other subjects (Bynum, 2000).
13
In the 1970s Walter Maner coined the term ‘computer ethics’ recognising an
important new area of applied ethics and was one of the first academics to develop
a computer ethics course for students (Bynum, 2008). In 1985 Debora Johnson pub-
lished the seminal textbook Computer Ethics (D. Johnson, 1985) where she stated
that computers “pose new versions of standard moral problems and moral dilem-
mas, exacerbating the old problems, and forcing us to apply ordinary moral norms
in uncharted realms.” “Computer Ethics” quickly became the primary text used to
teach computer at universities. The textbook also set the research agenda on top-
ics such as ownership of software and intellectual property, computing and privacy,
responsibilities of computer professionals, and fair distribution of technology and
human power. In later editions in 1994, 2001 and 2009, Johnson added new ethi-
cal topics such as hacking, inclusive technologies for persons with disabilities, and
Internet ethics.
A different emphasis for computer ethics was advocated by Donald Gotterbarn
(Gotterbarn, 1991), who believed that computer ethics should be seen as a profes-
sional ethics devoted to the development and advancement of standards of good
practice and codes of conduct for computing professionals. In the 1990s Gotterbarn’s
professional ethics approach purported that Computer Science students should be
taught their professional responsibilities, standards and reasoning skills to deal with
emerging and future ethical issues relevant to their profession as well as specific val-
ues and avoid malpractice (Iqbal & Beigh, 2017). Gotterbarn’s position was comple-
mented by the publication of the ACM’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct in
1991 which included recommendations to teach social and ethical issues as part of
undergraduate Computer Science curricula (Bynum, 2008, 1992; Fuller et al., 2010;
Tucker, 1991).
The approach of teaching computer ethics as a standalone professional ethics sub-
ject or for it to be delivered as an external course, often outsourced to a different
department like that of Philosophy or Social Sciences, sometimes devoid of techni-
cal context has pervaded for some time (Skirpan et al., 2018). For example, a survey
from 2019 by Saltz et al. (2019) examined the syllabi of machine learning courses
from a large number of third level institutions in the US and found that for a majority
of programmes, students are not taught any ethics content and for those that are, it
is usually a stand-alone elective course. It is only recently that scholars have argued
that since every computer-related subject carries social or ethical implications, then
these ethical topics should be widely integrated and infused in Computer Science
curricula (Harris et al., 2019; Weikle, 2018). For example, Grosz et al. (2019) argue
that modern technology cannot be considered “value-neutral” (p. 54); it can have
unplanned consequences and that Computer Science students should be trained
to identify the potential harmful effects of the technologies they help develop. An
important concept that students need to be able to think about is not only whether
they can create something, but whether they should create it in the first place. The
authors argue that teaching computer scientists to identify and address ethical prob-
lems starting from the design phase is as important as enabling them to develop
algorithms and programs that work efficiently (p. 61). Therefore, they argue for the
integration of computer ethics throughout the whole Computer Science curriculum.
13
A recent paper (Fiesler et al., 2020) surveys Computer Science computer eth-
ics classes in 94 universities located mainly in the US, showed that there is much
variability in the content of computer ethics courses which they attribute to the
lack of standards in this particular subject. This is not to say that there are no com-
mon patterns. Topics such as privacy, algorithms and inequality are considered
critical. The study also highlighted a slight move from standalone computer ethics
courses towards integrating computer ethics throughout technical courses. Scott and
Barlowe (2016) describe an experimental Computer Science module that introduced
first-year university students to basic programming with computer ethics and found
that those students who had completed the course were more likely to do better dur-
ing their first year of Computer Science. In related work, Ferrarello (2019) underline
that social and ethical awareness when introduced into Design and Engineering edu-
cation generally promotes the industry’s capability to tackle ethical and social issues
effectively. The study found that using methods such as workshops that adopted col-
laborative, engaged design approaches, facilitated discussion, debates and reflection
helped the participants acknowledge responsibilities and the ownership of decision
making in design and engineering.
At a postgraduate level, Dexter et al. (2013) investigated the requirement for com-
puter ethics education on graduate level programmes in four diverse US academic
institutions. They found that the majority of faculty and students were in favour of
an elective computer ethics course and almost half were in favour of a compulsory
computer ethics graduate course.
In terms of how computer ethics is taught, case-based analysis of ethical and
societal issues of technology that have either appeared in the news or are part of
hypothetical scenarios are a popular approach (Ghafarian, 2002; Kraft, 2011; Larson
& Miller, 2018; Quinn, 2006). This approach relies on precedent cases and para-
digms to reach a conclusion about a test case. Larson and Miller (Larson & Miller,
2018) argue that just reading about ethical issues is not enough, rather case-based
analysis provides an environment where students can apply computer ethics and crit-
ical thinking in realistic scenarios. In a 2019 study Lester and Dalat-Ward (Lester
& Dalat-Ward, 2019) found that combining case-based learning and ethical deci-
sion making with deliberative dialogue and role playing was an efficient method to
achieve the learning outcomes when compared to traditional lecture-based teaching.
They also found that the students’ self-confidence on the subject matter increased as
well as their critical thinking skills and their openness towards differing viewpoints.
However, one challenge the researchers discovered is the extensive preparation time
required by faculty members before each class.
Deliberation appears to be a good tool for teaching ethics as shown in a 2020
study by Shen et al. (2020) where they used deliberation and Value Cards in a gami-
fied teaching approach that combines technical training with topics such as Fair-
ness, Accountability, Transparency and Ethics (FATE) for a Machine Learning
class. Their aim was to help students understand the societal and ethical implica-
tions of machine learning-based algorithmic systems while taking into account
diverse social values. They designed a set of Value Cards drawing from the research
on value sensitive design and based on the concept of the Envisioning cards toolkit
(Friedman & Hendry, 2012).
13
Others advocate interdisciplinary collaborations between different academic fac-

ulties as an effective way to deliver computer ethics. For example, Kesar (2016)
created a computing curriculum that emphasizes interdisciplinary collabora-
tions between academic departments, promotes industry interactions and supports
students to develop critical ethical reasoning skills for real business settings. In a
review, the majority of students identified the ethical and social properties of their
projects rather than the technological aspects as the most complex issues. Another
recent interdisciplinary approach was reported by Reich et al. (2020) who designed
a multidisciplinary approach for teaching computer ethics at Stanford University.
Their approach combines the expertise from the faculties of Philosophy, Political
Science and Computer Science and includes panels of speakers and custom-built
case studies. Wilk (2019) who proposes the creation of an entirely new Computer
Science course titled “Computers, Ethics, Law, and Public Policy”. The course
would combine computer ethics with law and use examples and case studies to illus-
trate ethical and legal decision making. The author states the importance of teach-
ing legal aspects to Computer Science students because as new technologies appear
there will be new requirements to develop laws and computer ethics to address them.
Kortsarts and Fischbach (Kortsarts & Fischbach, 2014) proposed an approach
which combines together the ACM Code of Ethics and case-based design and analy-
sis. More specifically, their approach to computer ethics constituted of three parts.
The first part was about the students learning the ACM code of ethics and design-
ing case studies. In the second part the students had to analyse said case studies.
In the last part, the students had to review reading material from the ACM digital
library and present their findings. The researchers found that over two thirds of the
students found computer ethics to be important and would influence their decision-
making process in the future and also said discovering the ACM Code of Ethics was
worthwhile.
Drawing a parallel with the field of Engineering Ethics, which historically pre-
cedes Computer Ethics, Hess and Fore (2018) conducted a systematic literature
review of US Engineering ethics interventions and found that the most common
approaches were the use of case studies, exposure to professional codes and stand-
ards and discussion activities. Their study identified a great amount of variation in
the aims, methodologies and assessment approaches in the interventions available.
They argue that there is need for greater specificity about the term “ethics”, educa-
tors should set clear and well-defined goals for teaching ethics and they should be
able to provide evidence to community about the effectiveness of their approaches
with respect to the aforementioned goals.
Bates et al. (2020) identified various challenges in integrating ethical and soci-
etal dimensions into programmes. For example, forming a curriculum that is based
on ethical values can be challenging when teaching has to accommodate students
coming in with different cultural values to their academic teachers. Also, an interdis-
ciplinary approach to teaching ethics and critical thinking skills might run into the
obstacle of miscommunication due to different fields of expertise that have to work
together.
It is worth noting that much of the research on the teaching of computer ethics
focuses on US institutions and there is a lack of comprehensive data on the teaching
13
of computer ethics in Computer Science from a European perspective. Our study

aims to contribute towards shedding more light on what is the situation regarding
European Computer Science and related programmes. In the next sections, we out-
line the results of a survey of 61 universities across Europe designed to understand
the extent to which and how computer ethics is taught on Computer Science and
related programmes across Europe.
Methodology
We designed an online survey to better understand existing practices in the teaching

of computer ethics in Computer Science programmes at European Universities. The
survey was created using Lime Survey software and was developed in the English
language only. The questionnaire was sent to all members and networking partners
of Informatics Europe and European Digital Learning Network who are partners in
the Ethics4EU project with a reach of reaching 152 European Universities from 30
European countries. It was also publicly available from the Informatics Europe web-
site and shared on a range of social media platforms, including: Twitter, Facebook
and relevant LinkedIn groups. The questionnaire was deployed in January 2020 and
was available online for 6 weeks. Over the six weeks, weekly reminders asking peo-
ple to fill out the online questionnaire were sent. In total we received responses from
61 universities from 23 European countries representing a 40% response rate. Each
response is unique for the respective university. Participants did not receive any
incentives or remuneration to complete the survey.
The questionnaire (see Appendix) was divided into three sections. Section A sur-
veyed demographic information including the country of the respondent’s institu-
tion, their role, and the number of students studying Computer Science and related
programmes at the institution. The rest of the questionnaire was split into two parts,
B and C, based on whether the institution taught computer ethics as part of any Com-
puter Science or related programmes. Section B was completed by those at institu-
tions that do not teach computer ethics, and amounted to 22 out of 61 responses. The
questions in Section B examined the reasons why Computer Science is not taught
at those institutions. Section C was completed by respondents at institutions where
computer ethics is taught on their Computer Science and/or related programmes.
This amounted to 39 institutions and the questions surveyed how computer ethics
is taught, the background of staff who teach computer ethics and the scope of com-
puter ethics curricula.
For reasons beyond the researcher’s control there was a larger number of
responses from Italian institutions relative to other countries represented in the sur-
vey. However, as responses were grouped by whether an institution teaches com-
puter ethics or not, the responses from Italian universities were balanced with the
rest of the countries for Section C (institutions that do teach computer ethics). On
the other hand, in section B (institutions that do not teach computer ethics), Ital-
ian institutions accounted for almost one third of the responses (7 out of 22). Steps
were taken to balance the data using Jackknife resampling (Tukey, 1958) whereby
each response is systematically left out of the overall sample to ensure that no single
13
response has a significant impact on the overall outcome. Additionally, pairs and
trios of the responses from the Italian institutions were left out to explore whether or
not those responses had a significant impact on the overall trends, and it was found
that they did not.
Results
In this section we present the results of the survey starting with participants’ demo-
graphic information. The survey reached around 150 academic institutions and 61 of
them completed it. This shows a response rate of 41%.
Section A—participant demographics
What country is your institution primarily based in? (choose only one answer)
Twenty-three countries were represented in the 61 responses. It is worth noting that

the majority of EU member countries are represented here, as well as several other
European countries. Respondents from Italy are in the majority, and as discussed
responses were analysed and no significant impact of this overrepresentation was
found (Fig. 1).
Does your institution teach all subjects or focus on technical ones? (choose only one
answer)
As show in in Table 1, almost one third (31%) of academic institutions focus on

technical subjects, whereas the remaining institutions (69%) are general universities
that teach a broader range of subjects.
What is your role within your institution? (choose all that apply)
The majority of the respondents identified as Professor (62%). 14.75% identified as

Lecturers. Please note that in European counties, lecturers and professors are both
full time academic staff who carry out teaching and research duties. Therefore 77%
(Table 2) of respondents have direct teaching experience at an academic institution.
It is also helpful that other respondents identify themselves as having academic man-
agement roles, given that they would be more acutely aware of challenges associated
to resource allocation, which has been identified as a key challenge to the teaching
of computer ethics in Computer Science programmes (Grosz et al., 2019; Johnson,
2010; Pease & Baker, 2009).
Respondents could also provide other roles additionally to those shown in
Table 2. The following roles were also provided:
• Vice dean of the faculty

• Associate Professor
13
Fig. 1 Countries of participants
Table 1 Type of Institution Academic Institution type Count %
Teach all subjects 42 69%

Focus on technical ones 19 31%
Table 2 Roles of respondents Count %
Lecturer 9 15%
Professor 38 62%
Course-Leader 8 13%
Head-of-Department 12 20%
Head-of-School 4 7%
Other 8 13%
• Vice rector and former Head of School

• Head of ethics committee; Research integrity officer
• Teaching and Research Assistant
• Teaching Fellow
13
Table 3 Number of students Number of Students Count %

at the surveyed academic
institutions 1–1000 4 7%
1001–5000 6 10%
5001–10,000 3 5%
10,001–25,000 22 36%
25,001–50,000 23 38%
50,000 + 3 5%
Table 4 Number of students Number of Computing students Count %

studying on Computer Science
or related programmes 1–100 1 2%
101–500 12 20%
501–1001 14 23%
1001–2500 18 30%
2501–5000 10 16%
5000 + 6 10%
• Vice-Dean
• Assistant Professor
Approximately how many students attend your institution? (choose only one
answer)
A wide range of academic institutions sizes were represented in the survey (Table 3).
The majority of institutions (74%) had between 10,000 and 50,000 students.
Approximately how many students are studying on Computer Science and/

or Computer Science related programmes (e.g. Informatics, Information Systems,
Analytics, Computing for Business, Computer Engineering, etc.)? (choose only one
answer)
All academic institutions reported students studying on Computer Science or related

programmes. 30% of institutions surveyed report having between 1001 and 2500
students (Table 4) enrolled in Computer Science and related programmes.
NOTE: A “programme” refers to a complete collection of subjects a student had
to study before achieving a qualification, e.g. a BSc in Computer Science.
13
Table 5 Degrees offered by each Degree levels offered Count %

institution
Bachelor & Master & PhD 55 90%
Bachelor only 1 2%
Bachelor and Master only 2 3%
Master and PhD only 1 2%
PhD only 2 3%
Table 6 How important is it Count %

to teach ethics on Computer
Science (and related) 1 = Not at all important 0 0%
programmes
2 – Somewhat important 3 14%
3 – Neither important or unimportant 5 23%
4 = Important 8 36%
5 = Very Important 6 27%
At what level does your institution teach Computer Science and/or Computer
Science related programmes? (choose all that apply)
Of the 61 academic institutions surveyed, only 3 exclusively teach postgraduate pro-

grammes, and 1 exclusively teaches undergraduate programmes, with majority (90)
teaching a combination of both (Table 5).
Section B—Institutions that do not teach ethics as part of their Computer Science
and/or Computer Science related programmes
A total of 22 responses from 61 countries were received from academic institu-

tions that do not teach computer ethics on their Computer Science (and related)
programmes. Of those responses, 21 came from institutions that teach all academic
subject areas and only 1 from an institution that focuses on technical subjects. In our
dataset, almost one third (7 out of 22) of those responses were from Italian institu-
tions. In response to this overrepresentation, Jackknife resampling was applied to
estimate the bias of the sample and no significant impact was found. The rest of the
institutions were spread geographically across Europe.
How important do you think it is that ethics is taught on Computer Science and/
or Computer Science related programmes?
In academic institutions that do not teach computer ethics, almost two-thirds
(63%) of the respondents’ consider the teaching of computer ethics as either being
“Important” or “Very Important” for Computer Science (and related) programmes
(Table 6).
13
Please explain in a sentence or two why you answered the previous question
the way you did
The respondents gave a range of reasons as to why the teaching of computer ethics
is important. The.
most common was the ever-growing impact that computers have on society which
was mentioned by almost 50% of the respondents. Some of the respondents high-
lighted specific areas within Computer Science where they believe computer ethics
is important—Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Security and Ubiqui-
tous Computing were mentioned multiple times.
In terms of content delivery, some respondents felt that computer ethics should
be taught by incorporating it into existing modules, whereas others felt it should
be delivered as an optional module. Specific content that respondents suggested
included Codes of Ethics, Intellectual Property rights, privacy, as well as the broader
areas of software design and development and where computer ethics fits into those
processes.
Those who felt that there was not a need to teach computer ethics suggested it
was because employers don’t ask for it, it’s not the most important thing to teach on
a Computer Science (or related) programme, and that teaching it is not cost effec-
tive. Others claimed that teaching computer ethics would not help students become
more ethical as they should already know about ethics before they come to univer-
sity – from previous schooling and their family. One respondent claimed that ethics
isn’t taught in other non-natural science programmes, so wondered why Computer
Science should be different; and another suggested it is only relevant in Computer
Science research, not teaching.
Rate the following as reasons why ethics is not taught on your Computer Science
Respondents were asked to select from a number of possible options outlining

why computer ethics is not taught (see Table 7). The main reasons the academic
institutions do not teach it is a lack of time (73%) and a lack of staff availability
(73%). Half of the respondents suggests a lack of staff expertise was also a factor.
The responses reaffirm the notion that the majority of respondents do believe that
Table 7 Reasons why ethics is not taught

Somewhat disagree up Neither agree nor Fully agree up to
to fully disagree disagree somewhat agree
Ethics isn’t that important 71% 14% 14%

Lack of staff expertise 18% 32% 50%
Lack of staff availability 14% 14% 73%
Lack of time 9% 18% 73%
The content too far away from ethics 43% 48% 10%
13
teaching computer ethics is important event though it is not taught on Computer Sci-
ence (or related) programmes at their institutions (71%).
Are there plans to teach ethics on your Computer Science and/or Computer Science
related programmes?
The responses were evenly split between academic institutions that planning to begin
teaching computer ethics on their Computer Science (and related) programmes and
those who aren’t (41% each). 18% of respondents did not know (Table 8). Respond-
ents were asked to comment on their answer to this question. For those respond-
ents whose institutions are planning to teach computer ethics, the main subject areas
mentioned were Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Security, Health
Informatics & Bioinformatics, Requirements Engineering, and CSCW (Computer-
Supported Cooperative Work). One respondent mentioned that their institute are
launching an Ethical-Legal stream on their MSc in Data Science programme. For
those from institutions with no plans to teach computer ethics, they stated it was
due to either a lack of interest or a lack of expertise in the topic. One respondent did
mention that students at their institution have the option of doing an ethics module
in another faculty as part of their programmes.
Section C—Institutions that do teach ethics as part of their Computer Science

A total of 39 responses were collected from academic institutions that teach com-
puter ethics in their Computer Science (and related) programmes from 17 countries.
Of those responses, 18 came from institutions that only focus on technical subjects
and 21 came from institutions that teach all academic subjects areas.
How important do you think it is that ethics is taught on Computer Science and/
or Computer Science related programmes?
From the institutions that are teaching computer ethics in Computer Science (and
related) programmes, 95% of the respondents rate the teaching of computer ethics as
either being “Important” or “Very Important” (Table 9).
Table 8 Plans to teach ethics Count %
Yes 9 41%
No 9 41%
Don’t know 4 18%
13
Table 9 Importance of teaching Count %

ethics on Computer Science (or
related) programmes 1 = Not at all important 0 0%
2 – Somewhat important 1 2%
3 – Neither important or unimportant 1 3%
4 = Important 8 21%
5 = Very Important 28 74%
Do you think your institution/department is teaching enough ethics on your

Computer Science and/or Computer Science related programmes? (choose only one
answer)
Over one-third (36%) of the participants responded that do not believe that their
intuitions are teaching enough computer ethics in their Computer Science or related
programmes (Table 10). Almost half felt enough computer ethics is being taught “to
a certain extent”.
At what level is ethics taught as part of your Computer Science and/or Computer
Science related programmes? (choose all that apply)
Computer ethics is taught in 26% of the surveyed institutions at BSc level only
(Table 11). In 23% of the surveyed institutions it is taught at both BSc and MSc
level. In 28% of institutions it is taught at BSc, MSc, and PhD level. The final 23%
represents other combinations, such as “BSc and PhD level” or “MSc level only”.
Table 10 Is your institution Count %

teaching enough ethics?
Yes 6 15%
To a certain extent 19 49%
No 14 36%
Table 11 Level at which ethics count %

is taught
BSc only 10 26%
BSc & MSc 9 23%
BSc & MSc & PhD 11 28%
Other combinations 9 23%
13
Table 12 How ethics is taught Count %
Threaded throughout several modules 11 28%

As a stand-alone module 15 38%
A combination of both above approaches 13 33%
Table 13 Background of staff Count %

who teach ethics
Computer Science 28 72%
Ethics 17 44%
Philosophy 12 31%
Sociology 6 15%
Legal studies 9 23%
Other 4 10%
How is ethics taught on your Computer Science and/or Computer Science related
programmes? (choose only one answer)
NOTE: in this case, a “module” refers to a single topic that a student studies over
one or two semesters, e.g. Databases, Computer Networks, etc.
This question explores if computer ethics is being taught as a stand-alone module,
or distributed throughout several modules, or a combination of both (Table 12). In
the majority of institutions (38%), computer ethics is taught as a standalone module.
Which background does the person or people who teach ethics in your Computer
Science and/or Computer Science related programmes have? (choose all that apply)
The results presented in Table 13 show that staff teaching computer ethics at the
surveyed institutions come from a wide variety of backgrounds, with many coming
from multiple disciplines. The most represented discipline is Computer Science at
72%. However, a large number of those teaching computer ethics have backgrounds
in Ethics, Philosophy and Law. Please note that respondents could choose more than
one background and as such the percentage sum is higher than 100%.
Other backgrounds were provided by respondents in free text answers and
included: “Economics”; “Linguistics, Cognitive Science”.
Which of the following teaching methods are used to teach ethics on your Computer
Science and/or Computer Science related programmes?
Traditional approaches to teaching, such as “Lecturing” and “Case Studies” are

the popular approaches to teaching computer ethics, with “Debates” and “Problem
Based Learning” the next most popular pair of approaches (see Table 14). Guest
13
Table 14 How is ethics taught?

Seldom to never Sometimes Occasion-
ally to
regularly
Lectures 5% 14% 81%

Case Studies 14% 17% 69%
Debates 24% 24% 52%
Project-Based/Problem-Based Learning 41% 18% 41%
Guest Lecturers (academic) 40% 29% 31%
Guest Lecturers (industry) 74% 6% 21%
Role-playing 78% 9% 13%
eLearning Blended Learning 75% 13% 13%
Work-Based Learning 72% 16% 13%
Guest Lecturers (government-bodies) 84% 9% 6%
Guest Lecturers (professional bodies) 82% 12% 6%
Lectures are also relatively popular. Other methods listed in respondents comments
includes:
• Groupwork, Peer Instruction (using PeerWise), Student Discussions

• Seminars and Guest lecturers from the Arts
• Interviews with Researchers
• Student Presentations
• Embedded Videos
How many teaching hours per semester is devoted to ethics on your Computer
Science and/or Computer Science related programmes? (choose only one answer)
Table 15 Teaching hours Count Percent

devoted to ethics
0–1 h 6 15%
2–5 h 13 33%
6–10 h 7 18%
11–20 h 4 10%
20 + hours 7 18%
Don’t know 2 5%
Just under half of all respondents (48%) indicated that they teach between up to
5 h per semester, in contrast to 18% of respondents who indicated that they teach
13
Table 16 Ethical topics

Infrequently to Never Sometimes Occasionally
to Regularly
Ethical Issues 8% 16% 76%

Code of Ethics Professional-bodies IEEE/ 23% 26% 51%
ACM
Ethics Theory 38% 12% 50%
Argumentation 38% 25% 38%
Code of Ethics National bodies 55% 26% 19%
Code of Ethics IT companies 61% 23% 16%
computer ethics for 20 + hours per semester (Table 15). There is clearly a large dif-
ference to the amount of time the surveyed institutions devote to the teaching of
computer ethics in Computer Science (and related) programmes Table 16.
Which ethical topics are taught on your Computer Science and/or Computer Science
related programmes?
The most common topic is ethical issues with respondents commenting that these
are topics specific to subjects (e.g. Data Science). Just over half of the respondents
(51%) said that Code of Ethics from a professional body are taught at their insti-
tutions and exactly half (50%) teach Ethical Theory. Other topics mentioned in
respondents comments included:
• Responsibility
• Legal Issues
• Ethics Washing
• Epistemic Issues
• EU Ethics
How is ethics assessed on your Computer Science and/or Computer Science related
programmes? (choose all that apply)
The top three methods of assessing students’ understanding of computer ethics are
Exams, Essays, and Presentations; three quite standard approaches to assessing
Computer Science content. With much lower representation we find Quizzes, Port-
folios, and Rubrics (Table 17). Some other approaches mentioned by respondents
included methods such as Debates, Peer Instruction, and Discussion, and dynamic
and real-world approaches such as Risk Analysis, Real Use Cases, and Videos.
13
Table 17 How ethics is assessed Count %
Exams 26 68%
Essays 25 64%
Quizzes 11 28%
Rubrics 3 8%
Presentations 21 54%
Portfolios 4 10%
Does your institution teach ethics as part of any of the computing topics
outlined below? (These classifications are based on criteria by ACM – Association
for Computing Machinery)
The survey used the European Research Council’s Peer Evaluation (PE) panel clas-
sifications of Computer Science (PE6) disciplines. The categories are as follows:
• PE6_1: Computer architecture, pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing

• PE6_2: Computer systems, parallel/distributed systems, sensor networks,
embedded systems, cyber-physical systems
• PE6_3: Software engineering, operating systems, computer languages
• PE6_4: Theoretical computer science, formal methods, and quantum computing
• PE6_5: Cryptology, security, privacy, quantum crypto
• PE6_6: Algorithms, distributed, parallel and network algorithms, algorithmic
game theory
• PE6_7: Artificial intelligence, intelligent systems, multi agent systems
• PE6_8: Computer graphics, computer vision, multi-media, computer games
• PE6_9: Human computer interaction and interface, visualization and natural lan-
guage processing
• PE6_10: Web and information systems, database systems, information retrieval
and digital libraries, data fusion
• PE6_11: Machine learning, statistical data processing and applications using
signal processing (e.g. speech, image, video)
• PE6_12: Scientific computing, simulation and modelling tools
• PE6_13: Bioinformatics, biocomputing, and DNA and molecular computation
Respondents to indicate “Yes” or “No” as to whether or not they taught ethical

content for each topic. The results are presented in Fig. 2.
The PE6 areas considered to be most important in terms of teaching computer
ethics were:
1. PE6_7 Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Systems, Multi Agent Systems

2. PE6_5 Cryptology, Security, Privacy, Quantum Crypto
3. PE6_9 Human Computer Interaction and Interface, Visualization and Natural
Language Processing
13
Arficial Intelligence, Intelligent Systems, Mul Agent

64% 25% 11%
Systems
Cryptology, Security, Privacy, Quantum Crypto 59% 27% 14%
Human Computer Interacon and Interface,

54% 32% 14%
Visualisaon and Natural Language Processing
Machine Learning, Stascal Data Processing and
51% 35% 14%
Applicaons UsingSignal Processing
Soware Engineering, Operang Systems, Computer
46% 44% 10%
Languages
Web and Informaon Systems, Database Systems,
46% 38% 16%
Informaon Retrievaland Digital Libraries, Data Fusion
Computer Systems, Parallel/Distributed Systems, Sensor
32% 55% 13%
Networks, Embedded Systems, Cyber-Physical Systems
Bioinformacs, Biocompung, and DNA and Molecular
24% 51% 24%
Computaon
Theorecal Computer Science, Formal Methods, and
24% 55% 21%
Quantum Compung
Algorithms, Distributed, Parallel and Network
23% 57% 20%
Algorithms, Algorithmic Game Theory
Computer Graphics, Computer Vision, Mulmedia,
20% 60% 20%
Computer Games
Computer Architecture, Pervasive Compung,
19% 59% 22%
Ubiquitous Compung
Scienfic Compung, Simulaon and Modelling Tools 14% 59% 27%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Yes No Don't know
Fig. 2 Computing topics where ethics is taught
The PE6 areas considered to be least important in terms of teaching:
1. PE6_8 Computer graphics, computer vision, multi-media, computer games

2. PE6_1 Computer architecture, pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing
3. PE6_12 Scientific Computing, Simulation and Modelling Tools
It is perhaps not surprising that Artificial Intelligence, Security and Privacy

ranked highly in topics that are taught as these are mentioned frequently by respond-
ents as areas where there are important computer ethics issues to be considered, for
example as indicated by responses outlined in Sect. 4.3.3 and Sect. 4.3.8. It is sur-
prising however that pervasive and ubiquitous computing and simulation and model-
ling ranked so lowly on the list of topics taught given the important ethical dimen-
sions to these topics.
13
Discussion
We have presented the results of a survey that polled faculty from Computer Science
and related disciplines on teaching practices in computer ethics in Computer Science
and related programmes across Europe. The survey was completed by respondents
from 61 universities across 23 European countries. Some of the interesting findings
that emerged from the survey include:
• Two thirds of the institutions surveyed teach computer ethics as part of Com-
puter Science (or related) programmes, however one third do not.
• There is widespread agreement about the importance of teaching computer eth-
ics to students enrolled on Computer Science (or related) programmes. This
importance was noted whether or not an institute taught computer ethics as part
of their Computer Science or related programmes.
• Computer ethics is often taught as a standalone subject.
• When computer ethics is not taught as part of Computer Science (or related)
programmes the most common reasons cited are a lack of staff availability and
expertise.
• Computer ethics is considered more important for certain Computer Science top-
ics. For example Data Science, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Security.
• Most institutions devote a relatively small number of hours to teaching computer
ethics on their Computer Science or related programmes, 67% of institutions sur-
veyed teach 10 h or less per semester.
As noted from the survey computer ethics is considered more important by many
respondents, for certain Computer Science topics. For example, respondents men-
tion the importance of computer ethics with regard to topics such as Data Science,
Artificial Intelligence and Computer Security and respondents replied that computer
ethics is most commonly taught as part of Artificial Intelligence, Computer Security
and Human Computer Interaction courses. There is a great deal of public interest in
and media coverage of topics concerning data and Artificial Intelligence applica-
tions; they are also topics that are currently undergoing intense academic research.
It may be that those who teach computer ethics can more easily locate and identify
case studies and other relevant information such as research papers for these top-
ics. For example (Morley et al., 2020), new AI ethics tools are emerging that allow
developers to analyse AI and machine learning systems for levels of potential bias.
Furthermore, much has been written on the European Union’s General Data Protec-
tion Regulation which effectively create a “right to explanation,” whereby a user can
ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision that was made about them (Good-
man & Flaxman, 2017). This has led to an increase in the literature about how create
explainable AI systems (Ras et al., 2018). However, it should not be overlooked that
computer ethics is relevant across a range of Computer Science topics including all
of the PE6 areas outlined in Fig. 2. Evidently there is a need to develop teaching
content and case studies for ethical issues across a broader range of Computer Sci-
ence topics.
13
Our survey also found that computer ethics is often taught as a standalone sub-
ject at the academic institutions surveyed. This is in spite of evidence that infus-
ing computer ethics in Computer Science curricula gives students a better under-
standing of the ethical impacts and possible harmful effects of the technologies they
implement (Grosz et al. 2019). According to Grosz, such a “distributed pedagogy”
approach reinforces the message that ethical reasoning is part of what you do as a
Computer Scientist. Embedding computer ethics across the curriculum helps Com-
puter Science students see how ethical issues can arise from many contexts. Given
the increasing likelihood that many Computer Science graduates will work on socio-
technical systems with a variety of impacts on their end users, it is important that
Computer Science teaching emphasizes not only the technical capabilities of these
systems but also provides students with the ethical reasoning skills to analyse the
understand the ethical implications of these systems.
It is also worth noting that our survey found that people who teach computer
ethics to Computer Science students are more likely to come from a technical
background rather than an Ethics background. The question of who should teach
computer ethics to Computer Science students raises questions about the goals of
teaching computer ethics. If the goal is to raise awareness of the ethical issues sur-
rounding computers and to develop analytical skills for ethical decision making
then it would seem that it is more appropriate for Ethicists to teach this content (D.
Johnson, 1994). However, many ethical topics in Computer Science require a deep
understanding of the technology that gives rise to the ethical questions, for exam-
ple the complex mathematical structures that underpin deep learning algorithms. To
increase both the breadth and depth of computer ethics teaching, content would be
best developed via collaborations between Computer Scientists and Ethicists.
It is also noteworthy that looking at the responses from Sect. 4.3.6, when teach-
ing computer ethics, guest lecturers from industry and professional bodies are not
widely used. Taking this in conjunction with the responses from Sect. 4.3.8 which
indicates that the least frequent type of teaching is through the use of different cor-
porations’ codes of ethics, followed by national bodies’ codes of ethics (although
teaching using professionally bodies’ codes of ethics is far more common), this
may suggest that the connection between computer ethics and the relevant sectorial
industry needs to be further emphasised. This is important, as one of the key aims
of this research is to produce teaching content that will equip students with a work-
ing knowledge of the types of ethically quandaries that they may encounter in their
working lives. Therefore, having guest lecturers from industry, and particularly from
local or national industry, that may be more readily identifiable with by the students,
may help underscore the relevance of computer ethics to their own future profes-
sional careers.
In future work, the Ethics4EU project is that is focused on developing new open
computer ethics curricula and learning materials for faculty who teach Computer
Science. The design and development of these curricula will be done in collabo-
ration between academics from Computer Science and Ethics. The curricula will
consist of teaching content including case studies, in-class activities, assignments
and recommended readings. The Ethics4EU project will also establish a commu-
nity of practice for those who teach computer ethics to share lessons learned. The
13
overarching aims of the curricula will be to integrate the teaching of computational

methods with ethical reasoning skills and provide students with experience in iden-
tifying, confronting, and working through ethical questions across many topics in
Computer Science. Such skills will equip graduates to produce socially responsible
computer technology with benefits for all of society.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of
this article.
Ethics
This research was undertaken using the BERA guidelines as a reference point to
ensure that all activities were designed in such a way as to adhere to normal ethical
research practices.
Appendix The questionnaire used in the survey
About Your Institution
In this survey
INSTITUTION refers to a University, University College, Technical University, Institute of Technology,

Polytechnic University and other types of higher education institutions;
PROGRAMME refers to a complete collection of subjects a student had to study before achieving a
qualification,
e.g. a BSc in Computer Science;
MODULE refers to a single topic that a student studies over one or two semesters, e.g.
Databases, Computer Networks, etc.
13
1. What country is your institution primarily based in? (choose only one
answer)
Albania Latvia
Andorra Liechtenstein
Armenia Lithuania
Austria Luxembourg
Azerbaijan Malta
Belarus Moldova
Belgium Monaco
Bosnia and
Montenegro
Herzegovina
Bulgaria Netherlands
Croatia North Macedonia
Cyprus Norway
Czech Republic Poland
Denmark Portugal
Estonia Romania
Finland Russia
France San Marino
Georgia Serbia
Germany Slovakia
Greece Slovenia
Hungary Spain
Iceland Sweden
Ireland Switzerland
Italy Turkey
Kazakhstan Ukraine
Kosovo United Kingdom
2. Does your institution teach all subjects or focus on technical

ones? (choose only one answer)
Teach all subjects
Focus on technical ones
13
3. What is your role within your institution? (choose all that apply)
Lecturer
Professor
Course Leader
Head of Department
Head of School
Other:
4. Approximately how many students in total attend your institution? (choose only one
answer)
1-1000
1001-5000
5001-10000
10001-25000
25001-50000
50000+
5. Approximately how many students are studying on Computer Science or Computer

Science related programmes (e.g. Informatics, Information Systems, Analytics,
Computing for Business, Computer Engineering, etc.)? (choose only one answer)
1-100
101-500
501-1001
1001-2500
2501-5000
5000+
13
6.At what level does your institution teach Computer Science and/or
Computer Science related programmes? (choose all that apply)
Bachelor
Master
PhD
7. Does your institution teach ethics as part of any Computer Science and/or
Computer science related programmes? (choose only one answer)
Yes
No
PROGRAMME refers to a complete collection of subjects a student had to study before achieving a qualification, e.g. a
BSc in Computer Science.
Your institution is not currently teaching ethics as part of your Computer Science and/or
Computer Science related programmes
Only answer this section if your answer was 'NO' at question '7. Does your institution teach ethics as part of
any computer science and/or computer science related programmes?'
1. How important do you think it is that ethics is taught in a Computer Science and/or
Computer Science related programme? (1=not at all important, 5=very important)
PROGRAMME refers to a complete collection of subjects a student had to study before achieving a qualification, e.g. a
BSc in Computer Science.
13
2. Please explain in a sentence or two why you answered the previous question
the way you did.
Please write your answer here:
3. Rate the following as reasons why ethics is not taught as part of your Computer
Science and/or Computer Science related programmes
1 5
2 3 4
(never) (regularly)
Ethics isn’t that important
We have a lack of staff expertise
We have a lack of staff availability
We have a lack of time (there’s too many

other things to teach)
The content we teach is too far away

from ethics
If none of the reasons above fits, specify your reason why ethics isn’t taught on
Computer Science and/or Computer Science related programmes at your
institution.
Please write your answer here:
4. Are there plans to teach ethics on Computer Science and/or Computer Science
related programmes at your institution?
Acknowledgements The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not
constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commis-
sion cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Authors contributions All authors were involved in drafting and reviewing the survey instrument,
reviewing the content of the paper and contributing to the authorship.
Funding This paper is part of the Ethics4EU project which is Co-funded by the Erasmus + Programme of
the European Union under Grant Agreement No 2019–1-IE02-KA203-000665.
13
Data Availability All materials and data related to survey is available.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
References
Bates, J., Cameron, D., Checco, A., Clough, P., Hopfgartner, F., Mazumdar, S., Sbaffi, L., Stordy, P., and
de la Vega de León, A. 2020. Integrating FATE/critical data studies into data science curricula:
where are we going and how do we get there? Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness,
Accountability, and Transparency, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372832.
Brodnik, A., and C. Lewin. 2017. Guest editorial for special section on a new culture of learning: Devel-
oping computing in the curriculum and advancing digital pedagogy. Education and Information
Technologies 22 (2): 417–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9581-6.
Bynum, T.W. 2000. The foundation of computer ethics. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 30 (2):
6–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/572230.572231.
Bynum, T. W. 2008. Milestones in the history of information and computer ethics. In The handbook
of information and computer ethics, ed. K. E, Himma, H. T. Tavani, 25–48. John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470281819.ch2.
Bynum, T. W. 1992. Computer ethics in the computer science curriculum. In Teaching computer ethics,
ed. T. W., Bynum, W., Maner, J. L. Fodor, 12–40. Southern Connecticut State University.
Dexter, S., Buchanan, E., Dins, K., Fleischmann, K. R., and Miller, K. 2013. Characterizing the need for
graduate ethics education. SIGCSE 2013 - Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445245
Dodig-Crnkovic, G. 2003. Shifting the paradigm of philosophy of science: Philosophy of information and
a new renaissance. Minds and Machines 13 (4): 521–536.
Ethics4EU. (2021). Existing competencies in the teaching of ethics in computer science faculties. Eras-
mus+ Project. http://ethics4eu.eu/outcomes/existing-competencies-in-the-teaching-of-ethics-in-
computer-science-faculties-research-report/
Ferrarello, Laura. 2019. Conference or workshop, social awareness in design & engineering education
and practice: the value of ethics in postgraduate education at 21st International Conference on Engi-
neering & Product Design Education, Glasgow, 12th-13th September 2019. https://doi.org/10.
35199/epde2019.83.
Fiesler, C., Garrett, N., and Beard, N. 2020. What do de teach when we teach tech ethics? A syllabi analy-
sis. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE
’20), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366825.
Friedman, B., and Hendry, D. G. 2012. The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and
technical imaginations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1145–1148. Association for computing machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.22085
62.
Fuller, U., J.C. Little, B. Keim, C. Riedesel, D. Fitch, and S. White. 2010. Perspectives on developing and
assessing professional values in computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41 (4): 174–194. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1709424.1709461.
Ghafarian, A. 2002. Integrating ethical issues into the undergraduate computer science curriculum. Jour-
nal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 18 (2): 180–188.
Goodman, B., and S. Flaxman. 2017. European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a
“right to explanation.” AI Magazine 38 (3): 50–57.
Gotterbarn, D. 1991. Computer ethics: Responsibility regained. National. Forum 71 (3): 26.
13
Grosz, B.J., D.G. Grant, K. Vredenburgh, J. Behrends, L. Hu, A. Simmons, and J. Waldo. 2019. Embed-
ded EthiCS: Integrating ethics across CS education. Communications of the ACM 62 (8): 54–61.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3330794.
Harris, A.L., M. Lang, D. Yates, and S.E. Kruck. 2019. Incorporating ethics and social responsibility in
IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education 22 (3): 1.
Hess, J.L., and G. Fore. 2018. A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. Sci-
ence and Engineering Ethics 24 (2): 551–583.
Iqbal, J., and B.M. Beigh. 2017. Computer ethics: Job of computer scientist. International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering 7 (6): 41–49. https://doi.org/10.
23956/ijarcsse/v7i6/0135.
Johnson, D. 1985. Computer ethics. Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. 1994. Who should teach computer ethics and computers & society? ACM SIGCAS Comput-
ers and Society 24 (2): 6–13.
Johnson, J. (2010). Teaching ethics to science students: Challenges and a strategy. In Education and eth-
ics in the life sciences: Strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons, ed. B. Rappert, 197-
214. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24hc5p.17
Kesar, S. 2016. Including teaching ethics into pedagogy: Preparing information systems students to meet
global challenges of real business settings. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 45 (3): 432–437.
Kortsarts, Y., and A. Fischbach. 2014. Incorporating professional ethics into an introductory computer
science course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 29 (3): 35–42.
Kraft, T. 2011. Computer ethics: A slow fade from black and white to shades of gray. Information Sys-
tems Education Journal 9 (4): 37.
Larson, D.K., and K.W. Miller. 2018. Action ethics: Testing and data analysis. ACM Inroads 9 (1): 34–37.
Lester, L.-J.Y., and Y. Dalat-Ward. 2019. Teaching professionalism and ethics in information technology
by deliberative dialogue. Information Systems Education Journal 17 (1): 4.
Moor, J.H. 1985. What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy 16 (4): 266–275.
Morley, J., L. Floridi, L. Kinsey, and A. Elhalal. 2020. From what to how: An initial review of publicly
available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and
Engineering Ethics 26 (4): 2141–2168.
Passey, D. 2017. Computer science (CS) in the compulsory education curriculum: Implications for
future research. Education and Information Technologies 22 (2): 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-016-9475-z.
Pease, A., and R. Baker. 2009. Union College’s Rapaport Everyday Ethics Across the Curriculum Initia-
tive. Teaching Ethics 9 (2): 5–24.
Quinn, M. J. 2007. Case-based analysis: A practical tool for teaching computer ethics. In Proceedings of
the Thirty-Seventh SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 520–524).
Association for computing machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121341.1121503.
Ras, G., van Gerven, M., and Haselager, P. 2018. Explanation methods in deep learning: Users, values,
concerns and challenges. In Explainable and Interpretable Models in Computer Vision and Machine
Learning, ed. H. J. Escalante, S. Escalera, I. Guyon, X. Baró, Y. Güçlütürk, U. Güçlü, & M. van
Gerven, 19–36. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98131-4_2.
Reich, R., Sahami, M., Weinstein, J. M., & Cohen, H. (2020). Teaching computer ethics: A deeply multi-
disciplinary approach. Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Edu-
cation, ITiCSE, 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366951
Saltz, J., M. Skirpan, C. Fiesler, M. Gorelick, T. Yeh, R. Heckman, N. Dewar, and N. Beard. 2019.
Integrating ethics within machine learning courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education
(TOCE) 19 (4): 1–26.
Scott, A., & Barlowe, S. (2016). How software works: Computational thinking and ethics before CS1.
Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2016-Novem. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.
2016.7757436
Sentance, S., and A. Csizmadia. 2017. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a
teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies 22 (2): 469–495. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10639-016-9482-0.
Shen, H., Deng, W. H., Chattopadhyay, A., Wu, Z. S., Wang, X. and Zhu, H. 2021. Value cards: An edu-
cational toolkit for teaching social impacts of machine learning through deliberation. Proceedings of
the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 850–861. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3442188.3445971.
13
Skirpan, M., Beard, N., Bhaduri, S., Fiesler, C., & Yeh, T. (2018). Ethics education in context: A case
study of novel ethics activities for the CS classroom. SIGCSE 2018 - Proceedings of the 49th ACM
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2018-Janua, 940–945. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3159450.3159573
Stahl, B.C., J. Timmermans, and B.D. Mittelstadt. 2016. The ethics of computing: A survey of the com-
puting-oriented literature. Acm Computing Surveys (CSUR) 48 (4): 1–38.
Tucker, A.B. 1991. Computing curricula 1991. Communications of the ACM 34 (6): 68–84.
Tukey, J. W. 1958. Bias and confidence in not quite large samples. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 29:
614. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10026575637/en/.
Weikle, D.A.B. 2018. Teaching the code and ethics in computing. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society
48 (1): 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264704.3264705.
Wiener, N. 1950. The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wilk, A. 2019. Teaching AI, ethics, law and policy. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1904.12470.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Affiliations
Ioannis Stavrakakis1 · Damian Gordon1 · Brendan Tierney1 ·

Anna Becevel1 · Emma Murphy1 · Gordana Dodig‑Crnkovic2 · Radu Dobrin3 ·
Viola Schiaffonati4 · Cristina Pereira5 · Svetlana Tikhonenko5 · J. Paul Gibson6 ·
Stephane Maag6 · Francesco Agresta7 · Andrea Curley1 · Michael Collins1 ·
Dympna O’Sullivan1
1
Applied Social Computing Network (ASCNet) Research Group, School of Computer Science,
Technological University Dublin, City Campus, Dublin, Ireland
2
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers University of Technology &
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden
3
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden
4
Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy
5
Informatics Europe, Zurich, Switzerland
6
Télécom SudParis Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Samovar Lab, Paris, France
7
European Digital Learning Network, Milan, Italy
13

Fulltext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The teaching of computer ethics on computer science and related degree

programmes. a European survey

Downloaded from: https://research.chalmers.se, 2023-11-18 12:11 UTC

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

(article starts on next page)

The teaching of computer ethics on computer science

Ioannis Stavrakakis1 · Damian Gordon1 · Brendan Tierney1 ·

Accepted: 24 August 2021

Keywords Ethics · Computer Ethics · Teaching Computer Ethics · Computer

Others advocate interdisciplinary collaborations between different academic fac-

of computer ethics in Computer Science from a European perspective. Our study

We designed an online survey to better understand existing practices in the teaching

Section A—participant demographics

Twenty-three countries were represented in the 61 responses. It is worth noting that

As show in in Table 1, almost one third (31%) of academic institutions focus on

The majority of the respondents identified as Professor (62%). 14.75% identified as

• Vice dean of the faculty

Fig. 1 Countries of participants

Table 1 Type of Institution Academic Institution type Count %

Teach all subjects 42 69%

Table 2 Roles of respondents Count %

• Vice rector and former Head of School

Table 3 Number of students Number of Students Count %

Table 4 Number of students Number of Computing students Count %

Approximately how many students are studying on Computer Science and/

All academic institutions reported students studying on Computer Science or related

Table 5 Degrees offered by each Degree levels offered Count %

Table 6 How important is it Count %

Of the 61 academic institutions surveyed, only 3 exclusively teach postgraduate pro-

A total of 22 responses from 61 countries were received from academic institu-

Respondents were asked to select from a number of possible options outlining

Table 7 Reasons why ethics is not taught

Ethics isn’t that important 71% 14% 14%

Section C—Institutions that do teach ethics as part of their Computer Science

Table 8 Plans to teach ethics Count %

Table 9 Importance of teaching Count %

Do you think your institution/department is teaching enough ethics on your

Table 10 Is your institution Count %

Table 11 Level at which ethics count %

Table 12 How ethics is taught Count %

Threaded throughout several modules 11 28%

Table 13 Background of staff Count %

Traditional approaches to teaching, such as “Lecturing” and “Case Studies” are

Table 14 How is ethics taught?

Lectures 5% 14% 81%

• Groupwork, Peer Instruction (using PeerWise), Student Discussions

Table 15 Teaching hours Count Percent

Table 16 Ethical topics

Ethical Issues 8% 16% 76%

Table 17 How ethics is assessed Count %

• PE6_1: Computer architecture, pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing

Respondents to indicate “Yes” or “No” as to whether or not they taught ethical

1. PE6_7 Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Systems, Multi Agent Systems

Arficial Intelligence, Intelligent Systems, Mul Agent

Cryptology, Security, Privacy, Quantum Crypto 59% 27% 14%

Human Computer Interacon and Interface,

Scienfic Compung, Simulaon and Modelling Tools 14% 59% 27%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Arficial Intelligence, Intelligent Systems, Mul Agent

Human Computer Interacon and Interface,

Scienfic Compung, Simulaon and Modelling Tools 14% 59% 27%