Embracing Social Justice within a Computing Curriculum to Foster Social Change

Research Background and Issues

• Identified Problems or Challenges:
  The authors observed that traditional computer science (CS) education often lacks a focus on social responsibility and ethics. Despite the increasing importance of computing technologies in daily life and societal structures, CS education frequently neglects the social context due to its technocentric approach, failing to adequately address the relationship between technology and social inequities. This is particularly evident in fields like data science and artificial intelligence, where biases and systemic inequalities are embedded in technological design.

• Significance:
  As technology increasingly impacts global users, the design decisions of future computing professionals could have profound implications for social justice and technological ethics. A lack of awareness and tools to understand the societal impact of technological design risks exacerbating systemic inequalities. These challenges, coupled with recent public criticism of ethical lapses in technology, underscore the urgency of integrating social responsibility education into CS curricula.

• Research Motivation and Related Work:
  Related studies indicate that current ethics modules in computing education are inconsistent and rarely address core social justice issues such as gender, race, and data accessibility. The authors argue that incorporating social justice as a central theme in computing curricula can better equip students to understand the societal impact of technological design. Furthermore, applying social justice theories offers new frameworks for future technologists to create more equitable technological products.

Proposed Solution

• Proposed Solution:
  The authors developed and analyzed an undergraduate course, Introduction to Social Justice Informatics, aiming to drive social change through education. The course content explores how technology is embedded in and perpetuates unjust systems, as well as how tools and methods can be designed to address these issues. Additionally, the course examines how "futuring" and "speculative design" methodologies can overcome systemic constraints in addressing existing problems.

• Innovative Aspects:
  At the core of the course is the integration of course materials, student discussions, and reflective practices to cultivate critical awareness. This approach not only exposes potential inequities in technology but also encourages students to rethink their future roles and responsibilities as technology designers. Another unique focus of the course is encouraging students to imagine and plan for justice-oriented futures.

• Implementation Steps and Key Techniques:

  1. Teach the theoretical background of technology and social justice, including systemic inequities, algorithmic bias, and environmental risks.
  2. Reinforce experiential learning through classroom activities and assignments, such as GIS mapping, participatory design, and algorithmic ecology analysis.
  3. Facilitate discussions and reflections to help students understand the societal impact of technology from a personal perspective.
  4. Introduce "speculative design" and "futuring" methodologies to inspire students to envision equitable technological futures.

Research Outcomes

• Specific Outcomes:
  Through key assignments such as positionality statements, weekly journals, and final reflections, 47 students expanded their understanding of social justice. They recognized that technology is not neutral and learned to identify potential inequities embedded in technological design.

• Comparison with Existing Solutions and Advantages:
  Unlike traditional ethics education, which often focuses on theoretical moral dilemmas, this course directly addresses the real-world societal impacts of technological design through a social justice framework. The discussions and hands-on activities facilitated a deeper understanding of structural inequities and enabled students to integrate social justice principles into their future career planning.

• Experimental or Evaluation Results:
  Analysis revealed that students acquired the language and tools to understand social justice and expressed a desire to promote equitable design. However, a small subset of students expressed concerns about their ability to influence social change in their future careers, citing systemic constraints and challenges within corporate culture.

• Limitations and Future Directions:
  The study's limitations include relying solely on course assignments to analyze students' shifts in thinking, without exploring actual behavioral changes. Future research could involve interviews or longitudinal tracking to investigate how students apply social justice principles in their careers. Additionally, the authors suggest further exploration of strategies to sustain hope and action for social justice within workplace and organizational cultures.

In summary, this study successfully fostered "critical consciousness" among students through a social justice course in higher education and provided an initial roadmap for advancing social change in the technology sector.