Sherlock Licorish

Ronnie de Souza Santos, Cleyton Magalhães, Giuseppe Destefanis et al.

Empathy has been discussed as a relevant human capability in software engineering, particularly in activities that require understanding users, stakeholders, and the societal implications of technological systems. This relevance becomes more pronounced in the context of artificial intelligence, where software increasingly participates in decisions that affect diverse individuals and communities. However, limited guidance exists on how empathy can be integrated into technical software engineering education in ways that connect with the development of AI-enabled systems. This study investigates teaching practices that educators use to incorporate empathy into software engineering courses. Using qualitative analysis of educator-reported practices, we identified five categories through which empathy is operationalized within technical coursework: societal framing of AI systems, fairness and accessibility considerations in design and evaluation, representation of diverse users, stakeholder role awareness and responsibility, and structured reflection and feedback during development processes. The findings indicate that empathy can be embedded within core development activities rather than taught as a separate topic, enabling students to reason about bias, accessibility, accountability, and the societal consequences of AI technologies. These results contribute a structured view of how empathy-oriented practices can be incorporated into software engineering education to support the preparation of students who will develop AI-enabled systems.

Ann Barcomb, Mariana Pinheiro Bento, Giuseppe Destefanis et al.

Software fairness testing is a central method for evaluating AI systems, yet the meaning of fairness is often treated as fixed and universally applicable. This vision paper positions fairness testing as culturally situated and examines the problem across three dimensions. First, fairness metrics encode particular cultural values while marginalizing others. Second, test datasets are predominantly designed from Western contexts, excluding knowledge systems grounded in oral traditions, Indigenous languages, and non-digital communities. Third, fairness testing raises ethical concerns, including the reliance on low-paid data labeling in the Global South, and associated with this, the environmental costs of training and deploying large-scale models, which disproportionately affect climate-vulnerable populations. Addressing these issues requires rethinking fairness testing beyond universal metrics and moving toward evaluation frameworks that respect cultural plurality and acknowledge the right to refuse algorithmic mediation.