Fairness Across Fields: Comparing Software Engineering and Human Sciences Perspectives
For software engineers and ethicists, this work highlights the limitations of purely technical fairness approaches and suggests integrating human sciences perspectives for more socially aware technology development.
This study compares how fairness is conceptualized in software engineering (45 articles) versus human sciences (25 articles), finding that software engineering focuses on formal/statistical outcome distribution while humanities emphasize historically situated perspectives on structural inequalities.
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.