• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Annual IEEE International Systems Conference >Houston, we may have a problem: Results of an exploratory inquiry on software developers’ knowledge about Codes of Ethics
【24h】

Houston, we may have a problem: Results of an exploratory inquiry on software developers’ knowledge about Codes of Ethics

机译：休斯顿，我们可能有一个问题：对软件开发人员有关道德规范知识的探索性调查的结果

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Since the first computer development, society's dependency on software has continually grown, reaching, nowadays, an unquestionable degree with ubiquitous engineering systems. Greater the dependency on software, greater the social importance of the practices of all the players involved in the software development, being extremely relevant, in benefit of individuals and the public in general, the adoption of an ethical behavior. Intending to do an initial evaluation about software developers' knowledge about Codes of Ethics, it was done the exploratory investigation here exposed. In a pragmatic and quantitative approach, this study was based on: a) a survey in which respondents were 103 volunteer software development professionals that, at the same time, were students in two Computer Science postgraduate programs (a Master in Science and a Doctorate program); b) curricular analysis of 115 undergraduate courses in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Information Systems of 64 Universities that also had postgraduate programs. Results indicate that: a) a big part of software engineers (64%) had not had any contact with a Code of Ethics (any Code of Ethics and not necessarily a Software Engineering Code of Ethics); b) the mentioned ratio causes distress when considered the ubiquitous nature of software nowadays, the importance of software to people in general and to enterprises, the exemption of licensing for some software professions in the country in which the investigation took place and the existence of a Code of Ethics directed to software engineers (the IEEE/ ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics); c) the “unfamiliarity” of software engineers with Code of Ethics and with a Code specially related to their profession is in part originated in the Academy, according to the curricular analysis done in this inquiry; d) not knowing anything about Ethics is worrisome because professional conducts, then, become extremely dependent on professionals own consciences, consciences that may vary in a large spectrum and may lead to huge bad consequences to individuals and to the society in general, as it already happened in Human History; e) whether software is the result of a collective work, the unethical work of a single professional can contaminate the process of development, other software professionals and the final product itself, making employers and enterprises to be the ones exclusively charged by damages, if adopted theories that refute individual responsibility in collective work; f) in an age of global markets and of big international mobility between software professionals, ethical deficient software produced in a determined country/ set of countries may produce bad consequences internationally, affecting even countries in which software is produced ethically; g) in face of the scenario built in the research, global measures are indispensable for mitigating and minimizing risks associated to unethical software engineers' practices worldwide; h) part of the measures mentioned involves the Academy because part of the problem originates in it; i) despite teaching Ethics do not assure engineers behave ethically, this teaching could enable software engineers to think by themselves in situations in which an ethical position is expected; j) providing a dense background about Ethics to software engineers may not be necessary/ viable; in cases like this, the indispensable minimum knowledge may be obtained by the teaching and the diffusion of a Code of Ethics; k) in the domains of Software Engineering, the problem of the definition of a worldwide Code of Ethics may be overcome by the adoption and the broadcasting of the IEEE/ ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics.
机译：自从第一台计算机开发以来，社会对软件的依赖性一直在增长，如今，随处可见的工程系统已达到毫无疑问的程度。对软件的依赖性越大，参与软件开发的所有参与者的行为的社会意义就越重要，这对于个人和公众的普遍利益而言，极其道德的采用是极为相关的。为了对软件开发人员的道德规范知识进行初步评估，此处进行了探索性调查。采用务实和定量的方法，该研究基于：a）一项调查表明，受访者是103位志愿者软件开发专业人员，同时他们是两个计算机科学研究生课程（科学硕士和博士学位课程）的学生）; b）对64所大学的计算机科学，计算机工程和信息系统的115个本科课程进行课程分析，这些课程也有研究生课程。结果表明：a）很大一部分软件工程师（64％）未与《道德规范》（任何《道德规范》相关，而未必与《软件工程道德规范》）有任何联系; b）当考虑到当今软件的普遍性，软件对一般人和企业的重要性，在进行调查的国家/地区对某些软件专业的许可豁免时，所提到的比率会造成困扰。面向软件工程师的《道德准则》（IEEE / ACM软件工程《道德准则》）; c）根据本次调查的课程分析，软件工程师对“道德守则”以及与他们的职业特别相关的守则的“陌生”部分起源于学院; d）对道德操守一无所知是令人担忧的，因为专业行为会极大地依赖于专业人士自己的良心，良心可能会在很大范围内发生变化，并可能给个人和整个社会带来巨大的不利后果，正如已经存在的那样发生在人类历史上; e）软件是否是集体工作的结果，单个专业人员的不道德工作可能会污染开发过程，其他软件专业人员和最终产品本身，从而使雇主和企业仅受损害赔偿（如果采用）驳斥集体工作中个人责任的理论; f）在全球市场和软件专业人员之间国际交流频繁的时代，在确定的国家/地区或国家/地区或国家/地区中生产的缺乏道德的软件可能会在国际上产生不良后果，甚至影响符合道德的软件生产国; g）面对研究中建立的情景，全球措施对于减轻和最小化与全球不道德软件工程师的实践相关的风险是必不可少的; h）所提及的部分措施涉及学院，因为部分问题源于学院; i）尽管道德操守不能确保工程师遵守道德操守，但这种教导可以使软件工程师在期望道德操守的情况下自行思考; j）向软件工程师提供有关道德规范的密集背景可能不是必要/可行的;在这种情况下，可以通过讲授和传播《道德守则》获得必不可少的最低限度知识; k）在软件工程领域，可以通过采用和广播IEEE / ACM软件工程道德守则来解决全球道德守则定义的问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号