Fairness Across Fields: Comparing Software Engineering and Human Sciences Perspectives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27895v1
• Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2026 22:27:34 GMT
• Title: Fairness Across Fields: Comparing Software Engineering and Human Sciences Perspectives
• Abstract summary: This study challenges the limits of software engineering approaches to fairness by analyzing how fairness is conceptualized in the human sciences.<n>We conducted two secondary studies, exploring 45 articles on algorithmic fairness in software engineering and 25 articles on fairness from the humanities.
• Score: 2.470815298095903
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background. As digital technologies increasingly shape social domains such as healthcare, public safety, entertainment, and education, software engineering has engaged with ethical and political concerns primarily through the notion of algorithmic fairness. Aim. This study challenges the limits of software engineering approaches to fairness by analyzing how fairness is conceptualized in the human sciences. Methodology. We conducted two secondary studies, exploring 45 articles on algorithmic fairness in software engineering and 25 articles on fairness from the humanities, and compared their findings to assess cross-disciplinary insights for ethical technological development. Results. The analysis shows that software engineering predominantly defines fairness through formal and statistical notions focused on outcome distribution, whereas the humanities emphasize historically situated perspectives grounded in structural inequalities and power relations, with differences also evident in associated social benefits, proposed practices, and identified challenges. Conclusion. Perspectives from the human sciences can meaningfully contribute to software engineering by promoting situated understandings of fairness that move beyond technical approaches and better account for the societal impacts of technologies.

Related papers

• Technological Excellence Requires Human and Social Context [0.12470603961665389]
  We propose a broader understanding of excellence that combines technical rigor with ethical robustness, social intelligibility, and long-term relevance.<n>This article examines five interconnected domains where the humanities and social sciences, treated as integrated dimensions of research practice, can strengthen technological development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T11:12:59Z)
• Empathy in Software Engineering Education: Evidence, Practices, and Opportunities [2.198430261120653]
  This study investigates how empathy has been used, taught, and discussed in software engineering education.<n>We conducted a comprehensive search across six databases and analyzed 43 primary studies published between 2001 and 2025.<n>Our findings show that engineering programs frame empathy as an ethical and reflective capacity linked to social responsibility, whereas software engineering translates empathy into structured, design-oriented, and measurable practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T02:32:26Z)
• A Collectivist, Economic Perspective on AI [60.917028769172795]
  Information technology is in the midst of a revolution in which omnipresent data collection and machine learning are impacting the human world as never before.<n>This view neglects the fact that humans are social animals and that much of our intelligence is social and cultural in origin.<n>The path forward is not merely more data and compute, but a thorough blending of economic and social concepts with computational and inferential concepts at the level of algorithm design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T03:07:43Z)
• Effort-aware Fairness: Incorporating a Philosophy-informed, Human-centered Notion of Effort into Algorithmic Fairness Metrics [44.14690069232159]
  We propose a philosophy-informed approach to conceptualize and evaluate Effort-aware Fairness (EaF)<n>Our work may enable AI model auditors to uncover and potentially correct unfair decisions against individuals who have spent significant efforts to improve but are still stuck with systemic disadvantages outside their control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T21:07:13Z)
• Twenty Years of Personality Computing: Threats, Challenges and Future Directions [76.46813522861632]
  Personality Computing is a field at the intersection of Personality Psychology and Computer Science.<n>This paper provides an overview of the field, explores key methodologies, discusses the challenges and threats, and outlines potential future directions for responsible development and deployment of Personality Computing technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T22:03:48Z)
• Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability [61.44773053835185]
  Mechanistic interpretability aims to understand the computational mechanisms underlying neural networks' capabilities.<n>Despite recent progress toward these goals, there are many open problems in the field that require solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T20:57:18Z)
• Affective Computing Has Changed: The Foundation Model Disruption [47.88090382507161]
  We aim to raise awareness of the power of Foundation Models in the field of Affective Computing. We synthetically generate and analyse multimodal affective data, focusing on vision, linguistics, and speech (acoustics) We discuss some fundamental problems, such as ethical issues and regulatory aspects, related to the use of Foundation Models in this research area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T15:20:18Z)
• A Benchmark for Fairness-Aware Graph Learning [58.515305543487386]
  We present an extensive benchmark on ten representative fairness-aware graph learning methods. Our in-depth analysis reveals key insights into the strengths and limitations of existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T18:43:43Z)
• The Fairness Field Guide: Perspectives from Social and Formal Sciences [16.53498469585148]
  There is a critical lack of literature that explains the interplay of fair machine learning with philosophy, sociology, and law. We give the mathematical and algorithmic backgrounds of several popular statistical and causal-based fair machine learning methods. We explore several criticisms of the current approaches to fair machine learning from sociological and philosophical viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-13T21:30:03Z)
• A Sociotechnical View of Algorithmic Fairness [16.184328505946763]
  Algorithmic fairness has been framed as a newly emerging technology that mitigates systemic discrimination in automated decision-making. We argue that fairness is an inherently social concept and that technologies for algorithmic fairness should therefore be approached through a sociotechnical lens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-27T21:17:16Z)
• Human Trajectory Forecasting in Crowds: A Deep Learning Perspective [89.4600982169]
  We present an in-depth analysis of existing deep learning-based methods for modelling social interactions. We propose two knowledge-based data-driven methods to effectively capture these social interactions. We develop a large scale interaction-centric benchmark TrajNet++, a significant yet missing component in the field of human trajectory forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-07T17:19:56Z)
• No computation without representation: Avoiding data and algorithm biases through diversity [11.12971845021808]
  We draw connections between the lack of diversity within academic and professional computing fields and the type and breadth of the biases encountered in datasets. We use these lessons to develop recommendations that provide concrete steps for the computing community to increase diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-26T23:07:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.