genuinely ethical attitude (McNamara et al., 2018). None of these four objectives actually tackle improving the inclusion of ethics in AI. Objectives (1) *critique*, (2) *spot issues*, (5) *see multiple perspectives* and (7) *consider consequences* are more appropriate as part of an effort to raise awareness of socio-ethical issues. That said, while these are more relevant, raising awareness alone is not enough, because it does not guarantee a more thorough examination of the complex structures at play in AI socio-ethical issues.

In this regard, Borenstein and Howard (2021) remind us of the importance of AI ethics education also cultivating a sense of *professional responsibility*. As previously mentioned, AI workers are not solely responsible for the ethical development of this technology. If we aim to teach AI ethics, however, training cannot be reduced to a simple prism for noting AI's socio-ethical impacts; it must encourage a sense of empathy. But this is a view that has yet to be widely embraced. To my knowledge, only Shapiro et al. (2020) attempt to do this by adopting a philosophy of care.

### 2.3.2 A Dispersed Implementation

This lack of a robust ethical orientation makes it difficult to put the ambitions of AI ethics education into practice (Garrett et al., 2020; Saltz et al., 2019; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021). It is therefore hardly surprising to find a great variety in the approaches tested:

- debates, discussions and essays on case studies or more abstract issues (Bogina et al., 2021; Cernadas & Fernández-Delgado, 2021; Furey & Martin, 2018; Grosz et al., 2019; Henderson, 2019; Reich et al., 2020; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021; Weiss et al., 2021),

- role-playing to adopt the perspective of different stakeholders (Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Shapiro et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2021),

- science fiction to explore ethics through imagination (Burton et al., 2018; Weiss et al., 2021),

- analysis grids to assess various ethical issues (Saltz et al., 2019),

- introduction to various ethical theories (Bogina et al., 2021; Burton et al., 2018; Furey & Martin, 2018; Nakatumba-Nabende et al., 2023; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021),

- proofs of concept or small technical analysis exercises (Reich et al., 2020; Weiss et al., 2021), and

- a tracking application to reflect on personal data issues (Shapiro et al., 2020).

While many of these interventions show some promise, it is also noteworthy that publications describing AI ethics teaching interventions rarely draw on any theoretical framework. There are a few brief references to various pedagogies, such as experiential learning (Shapiro et al., 2020), active learning (Grosz et al., 2019; Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Shapiro et al., 2021), learning through a deliberation process (Shen et al., 2021) or constructivism (Bogina et al., 2021; Weiss et al., 2021). Often, though, these pedagogies do not seem to guide the intervention in depth. Moreover, except for Bates et al. (2020), who report using autoethnography combined with a provocation-based method, and Shapiro et al. (2020), who use grounded theory, no precise indication of the methodology used to analyze the results was found in the literature.

This dearth, or even absence, of theoretical and methodological foundations hinders the development of a relevant examination of the value of the tested intervention. This is all the more regrettable as many have pointed out that AI ethics and its teaching are eminently more complex topics to teach and assess than the mastery of technical notions (Fiesler et al., 2020; Horton et al.,
2022; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021). Even with the aim of raising ethical awareness, some choose to assess unrelated skills, such as the ability to argue (Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021), or to assess nothing at all (Furey & Martin, 2018). Most studies instead ask students to indicate what they thought of the course or to evaluate their ethical learning or skills (Bogina et al., 2021; Burton et al., 2018; Grosz et al., 2019; Henderson, 2019; Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Reich et al., 2020; Shapiro et al., 2021; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021; Weiss et al., 2021). Some pre- and post-intervention comparisons are reported (Bogina et al., 2021; Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Shapiro et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2021), but longitudinal studies on the effects of AI ethics courses are rare (Horton et al., 2023).

In any case, while students seem to appreciate their ethical training to some extent (Grosz et al., 2019; Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Reich et al., 2020; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021; Weiss et al., 2021) and claim that it has improved their ethical competence (Bogina et al., 2021; Grosz et al., 2019; Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Shapiro et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2021; Tuovinen & Rohunen, 2021; Weiss et al., 2021), these results must be interpreted with caution. Most of these studies are looking at optional ethics courses. The students who take part are therefore already interested in the subject, and may also believe themselves to be more objective about the course than they truly are (McDonald & Pan, 2020; Williams et al., 2022).

A review article by Hess and Fore (2018) agrees with this perspective, noting that publications dealing with ethics education in technical programs tend only to describe the intervention and report the students' perceptions of it. This lack of coordination and coherence stalls research efforts, since comparisons between the (too) wide variety of approaches and methods are extremely difficult (Fiesler et al., 2020). Even though the vagueness surrounding the learning of AI ethics can support flexibility, it can also discourage teachers, overwhelmed with the many possible directions (Saltz et al., 2019). This difficulty in establishing a dominant paradigm in AI ethics education can be explained by the more social and interpretive epistemological nature of education as a field, as opposed to the more positivist nature of computer science. This may lead to some resistance among people with a technical background to choosing research and evaluation methods that they perceive as insufficiently positivist and overly interpretive (Bates et al., 2020; Grosz et al., 2019; Raji et al., 2021).

# 3. Contribution of Humanities-Based Perspectives

To provide a more in-depth examination of the factors at the root of these obstacles, I use a humanities-based lens to explain why the aims of AI ethics education are compromised. Then, I suggest that humanities perspectives can also be part of the solution, creating mindset shifts that could concretely help to improve educational initiatives.

## 3.1 Understanding the Current Situation

### 3.1.1 A Quest for Simplicity and Objectivity

First, because the scientific method has historically fostered an overwhelming number of scientific and technical advances, the supposedly objective rigour of science and technology has been given a privileged status (Borgmann, 1992). This has encouraged the emergence of a vision in which human beings can tame nature thanks to science and technology, making it more coherent, orderly and functional (Borgmann, 1992; Foucault, 1975). In so doing, science and technology become synonymous with objectivity, efficiency and progress (Ellul, 2008; Slack & Wise, 2015). This perception then allows for the removal of any non-scientific approach to the various decisions
relating to scientific and technological evolution, relying solely on supposedly unbiased data that
would reveal the evidence of progress through rigorous measurement (Ellul, 2008; Winner, 2020).

Yet this conception of science and technology as being capable of giving an account of itself, and of reality more generally, obscures much evidence of the far more complex nature of reality. Every theoretical account tends to encompass some phenomena better than others (Kuhn, 2012). For example, as Criado-Perez (2020) and Schwartz Cowan (1985) demonstrate with an abundance of cases, something presumed to be a technological advance has the potential to prove harmful to women if we too naively assume that the male experience is universal. Thus, it is crucial to remember that science and technology are far from neutral, and are always, at least to some extent, the product of different contingent choices we make, whether consciously or not (Braidotti, 2013; Haraway, 1988; Kuhn, 2012; Slack & Wise, 2015).

This faith in technology as capable of achieving simplicity and objectivity may partly explain the difficulties encountered by AI ethics courses. Attempts are made to summarize and measure the various impacts of the complex subject of AI ethics, but these efforts do little to convey the subtleties of reality. This is compounded by the fact that for many in the AI field, technical approaches appear to be a simpler and more objective method of “solving” reality than more social approaches. This tendency toward approaches that appear to be “simple” and “objective” can also be seen in the failure to implement educational approaches that genuinely grapple with AI ethics challenges. The various initiatives in AI ethics education tend to remain rather superficial, and do not sufficiently consider the more complex perspectives proposed by educational and humanities-based approaches.

3.1.2 A Question of Authority

Second, the privilege dynamic created by science and technology is also an important consideration when discussing AI. Any techno-scientific artefact emerges from a particular context and reflects a certain social power structure (Winner, 2020). Therefore, experts are in a dominant position from which non-experts are excluded (Haraway, 1988). By coming to an agreement among themselves, the scientific community imposes its voice on the general population, which has no means of contesting it (Haraway, 1988; Latour, 1987). The latter therefore consents to the introduction of various technical-scientific concepts of which it has only a limited understanding in order to avoid finding itself in an exhausting state of constant vigilance (Latour, 1987). This notion of the expert's authority thus augments the explanation provided by the quest for simplicity and objectivity. Not only are science and technology not neutral, they also perpetuate a relationship of domination in which experts are in a position of power (Foucault, 1975; Winner, 2020). The fact that experts “accept” among themselves the various socio-ethical issues of AI then forces non-experts to do the same, and thereby perpetuates the currently inadequate development of this technology.

The dominant position of science and technology may also shed some light on the challenges faced by AI ethics pedagogy. First, the difficulty of defining AI ethics can be explained by the authority exerted by technical expertise, which imposes methods that are incompatible with the task. Second, approaches to AI ethics are constructed and taught to privilege technical competence and the attendant technical solutions above any other type of contribution, thereby neglecting socio-ethical impacts. Current courses in AI ethics seek to raise awareness of the many socio-ethical issues involved, but do not make students aware of their sometimes unduly privileged authority in these situations. This is all the more damaging since, considering the lack of diversity in AI, the expert point of view generally shows little interest in socio-ethical issues that affect more people from
marginalized groups (Borenstein & Howard, 2021; West et al., 2019). Finally, more social approaches to education seem to be discredited in the context of AI ethics pedagogy, which is strongly influenced by technical traditions.

## 3.2 Suggesting new Avenues for Reflection

### 3.2.1 Embrace Complexity

To start with, I propose abandoning this ideal of simplicity and objectivity that influences AI ethics education and instead placing value on the inherent complexity of the topic, echoing Morin's (1990, 2005) paradigm of complexity. This vision questions the current disjunctive and reductionist approaches to understanding reality, acknowledging how uncertainty complicates efforts to make sense of the world and focusing on the dense interconnectedness and interdependence of systems (Morin, 1990, 2005). Additionally, it highlights the fact that a producer of knowledge for a given system is also the product of that same system (Morin, 2005). As such, it challenges the belief in a single absolute truth and instead appreciates the plurality of well-warranted perspectives on reality to better grasp its complexity (Morin, 1990; 2005).

In doing so, we echo Dewey (1959) who emphasizes the importance of diverse perspectives on the world, including both scientific and non-scientific perspectives. This implies accepting that the vision of reality offered by science and technology is partial and situated (Haraway, 1988). Operating on technical principles alone fails to provide the full picture of socio-ethical issues that could be offered by a diverse set of analyses of the different structures involved (Hoffmann, 2019; McDonald & Pan, 2020; Raji et al., 2021). In this way, a more partial, but also more plural, knowledge opens the door to interdisciplinary collaboration and the recognition of a complex reality that changes as exceptions and errors are revealed (Haraway, 1988; Kuhn, 2012; Morin, 1990). More generally, thinking through the implications of developments in science and technology should be connected to questions of social context, to show and criticize their interdependent relationships (Dewey, 1959; Waddington & Weeth Feinstein, 2016).

Teaching AI ethics must therefore be a complex reflexive process, rather than a simple constraint to integrate or a target to hit (Bietti, 2021; Hagendorff, 2020; Rességuier & Rodrigues, 2020; Selbst et al., 2019; Stark & Hoffmann, 2019). We should first accept that AI ethics is itself a complex object. In this way, we aim to highlight this particularity, rather than trying to reduce ethics to more elementary subunits such as simply focusing on policy or misinformation. Second, we also need to *welcome* (and not merely acknowledge) a greater diversity of viewpoints, including those from the humanities, in thinking about AI ethics and the teaching of it (Bietti, 2021; Borenstein et al., 2021; Cath et al., 2017; Crawford & Calo, 2016; Gebru et al., 2021; Jobin et al., 2019; McDonald & Pan, 2020; Mittelstadt, 2019; Morley et al., 2020; Munn, 2022; Raji et al., 2021; Selbst et al., 2019; Stark et al., 2021; Wagner, 2018). Acknowledging the complexity of the topic and the necessity of tackling it from multiple perspectives may well make the search for any consensus or solution more arduous. However, this would seem to be more constructive than the current trend towards oversimplification and/or a merely technical approach, which are definitely insufficient, if not dysfunctional.

### 3.2.2 Encourage Care

For the validity of complexity to be genuinely acknowledged and dealt with in teaching AI ethics, I suggest that the ethics of care is an essential framing concept, as it is a key tool for questioning the often unwarranted authority that comes with the privilege of expertise. Technical credibility is
undoubtedly necessary, but remains insufficient without a certain amount of empathy (Stark & Hoffmann, 2019). Building on the rejection of a purely “rational” morality, the ethics of care places greater value on solicitude, benevolence and attention to interpersonal relationships (Gilligan, 1982). Care also encourages us to question the ideas of productivity and profit associated with techno-scientific innovation (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017). Some versions of care ethics emphasize a slower temporality, more in tune with the demands of care, to innovate with benevolence and an authentic recognition of others (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017).

By adopting the ethics of care, the aim is thus to propose an alternative to the moral distancing to which the ethics of AI and its teaching often lend themselves (Villegas-Galaviz & Martin, 2023). Future AI workers need to understand that their expertise comes with the responsibility to attend to others’ needs (Villegas-Galaviz & Martin, 2023). To achieve this, curricula should teach how to care for others, multiplying contacts with others to better understand, help and be concerned about them, all the more given the primary need care represents (Noddings, 2005).

Clearly, the ethics of care cannot be a universal solution for the challenges of AI ethics pedagogy. That said, it allows us to move beyond simplistic approaches by offering a more flexible framework that seeks to take genuine account of the other, their vulnerabilities, context and interdependent relationships (Villegas-Galaviz & Martin, 2023). This care framework also reorients the purpose of AI, its ethics and teaching, to make it a quest for benevolence and inclusion of the other, rather than a primarily technical performance. Of course, this task of cultivating empathy and benevolence through care is a laborious one. Yet, this vision is more plausible than it might first seem, since professions with relatively equivalent power to that of engineers (and developers), such as doctors, are already much more aware of their expertise's responsibility and duty of care (El-Zein & Hedemann, 2016).

### 3.2.3 Possible Concrete Solutions

To conclude this second part, I present a few avenues through which to explore the potential of including complexity and care in AI ethics education. These remain basic outlines, as the aim of this exercise is simply to identify some practical ways in which these notions can be integrated into teaching.

First, there is substantial potential in approaches based on problem-solving through service-learning projects. Combining learning goals with volunteer work, service learning is an experiential pedagogy which helps develop knowledge and critical reflection through work with communities (of various kinds) to meet their needs (Felten & Clayton, 2011). As argued by El-Zein and Hedemann (2016) and Raji et al. (2021), social issues, rather than technical specialization, could serve as the foundation of engineering (and computer science) curricula. In this way, service learning helps highlight the complexity of socio-ethical problems (Borenstein et al., 2021; Borenstein & Howard, 2021; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019; Raji et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022) and fosters the development of moral reasoning in students (Boss, 1994; Lies et al., 2012) while not compromising the teaching of technical content and skills (Novak et al., 2007). Moreover, this approach could be interesting for students who seek to use their technical careers to serve the common good but do not feel the current curricula can help them achieve this goal (Carrigan, 2017; Rulifson & Bielefeldt, 2017).

Second, to further emphasize the complexity of AI ethics and the importance of caring, I suggest using the embedded ethics strategy, in which ethics is integrated into technical courses. Unlike the stand-alone ethics course, this format effectively signals the breadth of socio-ethical issues and the
need to make them an ongoing concern when performing technical tasks (Borenstein & Howard, 2021; Garrett et al., 2020; Raji et al., 2021). To overcome the current shortcomings of this approach, it is essential to include ethical content throughout the semester and across several courses, since these notions should be frequently addressed to provide for sufficient understanding and integration (Horton et al., 2023).

Third, it is necessary to promote interdisciplinary teaching to ensure a proper representation of the multiplicity of legitimate perspectives (Bates et al., 2020; Borenstein et al., 2021; Borenstein & Howard, 2021; Garrett et al., 2020; Raji et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022). A multidisciplinary teaching team is an attainable ideal (Furey & Martin, 2018; Grosz et al., 2019; Horton et al., 2022, 2023; Reich et al., 2020), although more costly in terms of time, financial and human resources (Fiesler et al., 2020; Grosz et al., 2019; Horton et al., 2023). A simpler alternative—the option of adding staff trained in other disciplines to computer science departments—can also be considered (Bates et al., 2020; Fiesler et al., 2020; Grosz et al., 2019). Moreover, interdisciplinarity can also be reflected in a pedagogy based on authentic and complex societal problems, as this encourages a search for the best possible solution that goes beyond the current focus on tech-centred approaches (McDonald & Pan, 2020; Raji et al., 2021; Schiff et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022).

## 4. Conclusion

In short, AI ethics pedagogy undoubtedly represents a thorny but crucial issue to address if we are to help future AI developers prepare for the socio-ethical issues they will encounter in their work. As such, this paper began by identifying the main obstacles facing AI ethics curricula, based on a literature review. There were three key obstacles: first, determining the meaning and implications of AI ethics is a fundamentally difficult task; second, the technical perspective in AI continues to be generally favoured over the social one; and finally, current AI ethics education lacks of a solid pedagogical foundation to guide the ways in which the socio-ethical issues are addressed.

I have also argued that perspectives from the humanities offer useful explanations for the challenges faced by the pedagogy of AI ethics. These explanations are organized around two axes: the quest for simplicity and objectivity that drives the AI field, and the relationship of authority that places technical experts in a relationship of domination over non-experts. This discussion, grounded in these perspectives, has offered various avenues for reflection that could improve the teaching of AI ethics. Drawing on the paradigm of complexity and the ethics of care, which can provide a broader response to the obstacles encountered by this type of education, some more concrete avenues for solutions were suggested.

While including complexity and care is far from easy, these two concepts have the potential to bring about change in AI ethics education. Indeed, until now, AI ethics has not been given the priority it deserves in technical programs (and in industry, more generally). In other words, simply raising awareness of the socio-ethical issues raised by AI is no longer enough. Future AI workers now need to be taught to recognize the complexity of these issues, as well as to genuinely care about those who may suffer from the increasing integration of AI. Only when this transformation has taken place will AI ethics education become truly relevant and authentic. As such, greater openness to disciplinary and community collaborations represents a first step in the right direction.
# Notes

## Data Availability

No data supporting the article were collected during the research.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec (https://doi.org/10.69777/341903). The author also wants to thank David Waddington for his careful reading and helpful feedback.

## References

Bates, J., Cameron, D., Checco, A., Clough, P., Hopfgartner, F., Mazumdar, S., Sbaffi, L., Stordy, P., & 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? In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency* (pp. 425-435). ACM. https://doi.org/pt6z

Bietti, E. (2021). From ethics washing to ethics bashing: A view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency* (pp. 210-219). ACM. https://doi.org/gt9hx9

Bogina, V., Hartman, A., Kuflik, T., & Shulner-Tal, A. (2021). Educating software and AI stakeholders about algorithmic fairness, accountability, transparency and ethics. *International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32*, 808-833. https://doi.org/pt62

Borenstein, J., Grodzinsky, F. S., Howard, A., Miller, K. W., & Wolf, M. J. (2021). AI ethics: A long history and a recent burst of attention. *Computer, 54*(1), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.3034950

Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. *AI and Ethics, 1*(1), 61-65. https://doi.org/ghzjs8

Borgmann, A. (1992). *Crossing the postmodern divide*. University of Chicago Press.

Boss, J. A. (1994). The effect of community service work on the moral development of college ethics students. *Journal of Moral Education, 23*(2), 183-198. https://doi.org/fhdk5x

Braidotti, R. (2013). *The posthuman*. Polity Press.

Burton, E., Goldsmith, J., & Mattei, N. (2018). How to teach computer ethics through science fiction. *Communications of the ACM, 61*(8), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1145/3154485

Carrigan, C. M. (2017). Yearning to give back: Searching for social purpose in computer science and engineering. *Frontiers in Psychology, 8*, Article 1178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01178

Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. *Science and Engineering Ethics, 24*, 505-528. https://doi.org/ggj628

Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? *Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39*(1), 42-72. https://doi.org/gjjvgv
Cernadas, E., & Fernández-Delgado, M. (2021). Embedded ethics to teach machine learning courses: An experience. In A. García-Holgado, F. J. García-Peñalvo, C. S. González-González, A. Infante-Moro, & J. C. Infante-Moro (Eds.), *Proceedings of 2021 XI International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV)* (pp. 91-94). IEEE.
https://doi.org/g693c9

Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017). Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In *Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining* (pp. 797-806). ACM.
https://doi.org/gf2q38

Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. *Nature*, 538(7625), 311-313. https://doi.org/10.1038/538311a

Criado-Perez, C. (2020). *Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men*. Abrams.

Dewey, J. (1959). *Dewey on education: Selections* (M. S. Dworkin, Ed.). Teachers College Press.

Dutton, T., Barron, B., & Boskovic, G. (2018). *Report on national and regional AI strategies*. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. https://cifar.ca/...

Ellul, J. (2008). *La technique, ou, L'enjeu du siècle* [*The technological society*] (2nd ed.). Economica.

El-Zein, A. H., & Hedemann, C. (2016). Beyond problem solving: Engineering and the public good in the 21st century. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 137, 692-700.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.129

Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2011). Service-learning. *New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011*(128), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.470

Fiesler, C., Garrett, N., & Beard, N. (2020). What do we teach when we teach tech ethics? A syllabi analysis. In *Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education* (pp. 289-295). ACM. https://doi.org/ggqzkz

Floridi, L. (2018). Soft ethics and the governance of the digital. *Philosophy & Technology*, 31(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/gcz7zt

Fosso Wamba, S., Bawack, R. E., Guthrie, C., Queiroz, M. M., & Carillo, K. D. A. (2021). Are we preparing for a good AI society? A bibliometric review and research agenda. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 164, Article 120482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120482

Foucault, M. (1975). *Surveiller et punir* [*Discipline and punish*]. Gallimard.

Furey, H., & Martin, F. (2018). AI education matters: A modular approach to AI ethics education. *AI Matters*, 4(4), 13-15. https://doi.org/g5vq39

Garrett, N., Beard, N., & Fiesler, C. (2020). More than “If time allows”: The role of ethics in AI education. In *Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society* (pp. 272-278). ACM. https://doi.org/ghj6jf

Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., III, & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. *Communications of the ACM*, 64(12), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723
Gilligan, C. (1982). *In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development*. Harvard University Press.

Gorur, R., Hoon, L., & Kowal, E. (2020). Computer science ethics education in Australia – A work in progress. In H. Mitsuhara, Y. Goda, Y. Ohashi, Ma. M. T. Rodrigo, J. Shen, N. Venkatarayalu, G. Wong, M. Yamada, & C.-U. Lei (Eds.), *Proceedings of 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE)* (pp. 945-947). IEEE. https://doi.org/pt63

Green, B. (2021). The contestation of tech ethics: A sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice. *Journal of Social Computing*, 2(3), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2021.0018

Greene, D., Hoffmann, A. L., & Stark, L. (2019). Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In *Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences* (pp. 2122-2131). AIS. https://aisel.aisnet.org/...

Grosz, B. J., Grant, D. G., Vredenburgh, K., Behrends, J., Hu, L., Simmons, A., & Waldo, J. (2019). Embedded EthiCS: Integrating ethics across CS education. *Communications of the ACM*, 62(8), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330794

Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. *Minds and Machines*, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/ggncpj

Hanif, A., Zhang, X., & Wood, S. (2021). A Survey on explainable artificial intelligence techniques and challenges. In *Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 25th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW)* (pp. 81-89). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW52865.2021.00036

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. *Feminist Studies*, 14(3), 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Harrison, G., Hanson, J., Jacinto, C., Ramirez, J., & Ur, B. (2020). An empirical study on the perceived fairness of realistic, imperfect machine learning models. In *Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency* (pp. 392-402). https://doi.org/grttjs

Henderson, T. (2019). Teaching data ethics: We're going to ethics the heck out of this. In *Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Computing Education Practice* (article 4). ACM. https://doi.org/grdcsf

Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. (2018). A Systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. *Science and Engineering Ethics*, 24, 551-583. https://doi.org/ggbg5c

Hickok, M. (2021). Lessons learned from AI ethics principles for future actions. *AI and Ethics*, 1(1), 41-47. https://doi.org/gm9css

Hoffmann, A. L. (2019). Where fairness fails: Data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. *Information, Communication & Society*, 22(7), 900-915. https://doi.org/gf2m8v

Horton, D., Liu, D., McIlraith, S. A., & Wang, N. (2023). Is more better when embedding ethics in CS courses? In *Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education* (Vol. 1, pp. 652-658). ACM. https://doi.org/pt64
Horton, D., McIlraith, S. A., Wang, N., Majedi, M., McClure, E., & Wald, B. (2022). Embedding ethics in computer science courses: Does it work? In *Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education* (Vol. 1, pp. 481-487). ACM. https://doi.org/pt65

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. *Nature Machine Intelligence*, 1(9), 389-399. https://doi.org/gf73q2

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). *The structure of scientific revolutions* (I. Hacking, Ed.; 4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962.)

Latour, B. (1987). *Science in action*. Harvard University Press.

Lauer, D. (2021). You cannot have AI ethics without ethics. *AI and Ethics*, 1(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/ghzjtb

Lies, J. M., Bock, T., Brandenberger, J., & Trozzolo, T. A. (2012). The effects of off-campus service learning on the moral reasoning of college students. *Journal of Moral Education*, 41(2), 189-199. https://doi.org/pwch

McDonald, N., & Pan, S. (2020). Intersectional AI: A study of how information science students think about ethics and their impact. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction*, 4(CSCW2), article 147. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415218

McNamara, A., Smith, J., & Murphy-Hill, E. (2018). Does ACM's code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development? In G. T. Leavens, A. Garcia, & C. S. Păsăreanu (Eds.), *ESEC/FSE 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering* (pp. 729-733). ACM. https://doi.org/gm5prz

Metcalf, J., Moss, E., & boyd, d. (2019). Owning ethics: Corporate logics, Silicon Valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. *Social Research: An International Quarterly*, 86(2), 449-476. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2019.0022

Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. *Nature Machine Intelligence*, 1(11), 501-507. https://doi.org/ggdjzn

Morin, E. (1990). *Science avec conscience* [*Science with conscience*] (New edition). Éditions du Seuil.

Morin, E. (2005). *Introduction à la pensée complexe* [*Introduction to complexity*]. Éditions du Seuil.

Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (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. https://doi.org/ghc8ng

Munn, L. (2022). The uselessness of AI ethics. *AI and Ethics*, 3(3), 869-877. https://doi.org/gqs7nz

Nakatumba-Nabende, J., Suuna, C., & Bainomugisha, E. (2023). AI ethics in higher education: Research experiences from practical development and deployment of AI systems. In C. C. Corrigan, S. A. Asakipaam, J. J. Kponyo, & C. Luetge (Eds.), *AI ethics in higher education: Insights from Africa and beyond* (pp. 39-55). Springer. https://doi.org/pwck
Naphan-Kingery, D. E., Miles, M., Brockman, A., McKane, R., Botchway, P., & McGee, E. (2019). Investigation of an equity ethic in engineering and computing doctoral students. *Journal of Engineering Education, 108*(3), 337-354. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20284

Noddings, N. (2005). *The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education* (2nd ed). Teachers College Press.

Novak, J. M., Markey, V., & Allen, M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. *Communication Research Reports, 24*(2), 149-157. https://doi.org/fqrgsv

Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). *Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds*. University of Minnesota Press.

Raji, I. D., Scheuerman, M. K., & Amironesei, R. (2021). You can't sit with us: Exclusionary pedagogy in AI ethics education. In *FAccT '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency* (pp. 515-525). ACM. https://doi.org/gh7f5p

Reich, R., Sahami, M., Weinstein, J. M., & Cohen, H. (2020). Teaching computer ethics: A deeply multidisciplinary approach. In *SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education* (pp. 296-302). ACM. https://doi.org/ggxqbf

Rességuier, A., & Rodrigues, R. (2020). AI ethics should not remain toothless! A call to bring back the teeth of ethics. *Big Data & Society, 7*(2). https://doi.org/gg9ndb

Rulifson, G., & Bielefeldt, A. (2017). Motivations to leave engineering: Through a lens of social responsibility. *Engineering Studies, 9*(3), 222-248. https://doi.org/gc3hfj

Saltz, J., Skirpan, M., Fiesler, C., Gorelick, M., Yeh, T., Heckman, R., Dewar, N., & Beard, N. (2019). Integrating ethics within machine learning courses. *ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19*(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/3341164

Schiff, D. (2021). Education for AI, not AI for Education: The role of education and ethics in national AI policy strategies. *International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32*(3), 527-563. https://doi.org/gs7d89

Schiff, D., Rakova, B., Ayesh, A., Fanti, A., & Lennon, M. (2021). Explaining the principles to practices gap in AI. *IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 40*(2), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3056286

Schwartz Cowan, R. (1985). *More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave*. Basic Books.

Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In *FAT*\* '19: *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency* (pp. 59-68). ACM. https://doi.org/gftmp3

Shapiro, B. R., Lovegall, E., Meng, A., Borenstein, J., & Zegura, E. (2021). Using role-play to scale the integration of ethics across the computer science curriculum. In *SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education* (pp. 1034-1040). ACM. https://doi.org/pwcr
Shapiro, B. R., Meng, A., O'Donnell, C., Lou, C., Zhao, E., Dankwa, B., & Hostetler, A. (2020). Re-shape: A method to teach data ethics for data science education. In *CHI '20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. ACM. https://doi.org/ghrmf5

Shen, H., Deng, W. H., Chattopadhyay, A., Wu, Z. S., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. (2021). Value cards: An educational toolkit for teaching social impacts of machine learning through deliberation. In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency* (pp. 850-861). ACM. https://doi.org/gh73fv

Slack, J. D., & Wise, J. M. (2015). *Culture + technology: A primer* (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.

Stark, L., Greene, D., & Hoffmann, A. L. (2021). Critical perspectives on governance mechanisms for AI/ML systems. In J. Roberge & M. Castelle (Eds.), *The cultural life of machine learning* (pp. 257-280). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/pwcs

Stark, L., & Hoffmann, A. L. (2019). Data is the new what? Popular metaphors & professional ethics in emerging data culture. *Journal of Cultural Analytics, 4*(1). https://doi.org/10.22148/16.036

Tuovinen, L., & Rohunen, A. (2021). Teaching AI ethics to engineering students: Reflections on syllabus design and teaching methods. In J. Koskinen, M. M. Rantanen, A.-M. Tuikka, & S. Knaapi-Junnila (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 – Tethics 2021* (pp. 19-33). CEUR. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3069/FP_02.pdf

Villegas-Galaviz, C., & Martin, K. (2023). Moral distance, AI, and the ethics of care. *AI & Society, 39*(4), 1695-1706. https://doi.org/pwcv

Waddington, D. I., & Weeth Feinstein, N. (2016). Beyond the search for truth: Dewey's humble and humanistic vision of science education. *Educational Theory, 66*(1-2), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12157

Wagner, B. (2018). Ethics as an escape from regulation: From “ethics-washing” to ethics-shopping? In E. Bayamlioğlu, I. Baraliuc, L. Janssens, & M. Hildebrandt (Eds.), *Being profiled: Cogitas ergo sum – 10 years of profiling the European citizen* (pp. 84-89). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvhrd092.18

Weiss, A., Vrecar, R., Zamiechowska, J., & Purgathofer, P. (2021). Using the design of adversarial chatbots as a means to expose computer science students to the importance of ethics and responsible design of AI technologies. In C. Ardito, R. Lanzilotti, A. Malizia, H. Petrie, A. Piccinno, G. Desolda, & K. Inkpen (Eds.), *Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2021* (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12934, pp. 331-339). Springer. https://doi.org/pwcw

West, S. M., Whittaker, M., & Crawford, K. (2019). *Discriminating systems: Gender, race and power in AI*. AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.pdf

Williams, R. M., Smarr, S., Prioleau, D., & Gilbert, J. E. (2022). Oh no, not another trolley! On the need for a co-liberative consciousness in CS pedagogy. *IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 3*(1), 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3084913

Winner, L. (2020). *The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology* (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.