As relative newcomers to the administrative structure of higher education, academic departments of computer science have had to find their way and find their place. Over decades, this author has taught courses in divisions devoted to business and professional studies, to information systems, to arts and sciences, and to engineering, and has seen our discipline’s titular department move among those divisions (and has seen computer science sometimes associated with library science), as well as independent Schools of Computing. The underlying question is a standard philosophical inquiry: “What is X?” Its accompaniment, “How can we tell what X is?”, may be pursued before, during, or after the first inquiry.
The question “What is computer science?” boasts venerable commentary,4, 2,7 all of which contribute to the current question (and contribute to its rolling resolutions). Knuth explains via the fundamental tool the algorithm, Shagrir by the nature of computers, and Denning by areas of endeavor.
Ammon Eden classifies by the paradigms of program purpose and features, and explicitly addresses philosophical questions regarding the nature of computer science.3 The joint ACM/IEEE Task Force on the Core of Computer Science1 gives the “official” view along the same lines. See also Chapter 3 of Rapaport for an extended and wide-ranging development.6 What, however, is the philosophy involved in deciding on the academic home of computer science, given the traditional (American) academic hierarchy? Lack of administrative influence, past or present, and experience of that deliberation only at a distance, leaves me free to speculate.
An intriguing Ph.D. dissertation by Patrick Olson5 examines the placement question from a perspective (“as perceived by academic officers”) that acknowledges the politics of the situation, with thorough coverage of the history and the factors involved, at least at the time. (My favorite sentence, from the conclusions (page 303): “The first and most important recommendation is that computing faculty should cease their denigration of other domains in computing.”5 Olson goes on to approve a multiplicity of departments with different emphases in different divisions. Yes, there might be turf wars, struggles over material and reputational status, involved. Important differentiations among divisions include the resource demands (equipment and faculty) and the anticipated growth and change. These pragmatic influences are strong, but do not expose philosophical considerations.
So, what aspects of philosophy does this decision involve beyond the basic ontological question (“What is computing?”) addressed by the experts? Those of you who helped decide where computer science belongs—how did you tell? You might have considered the greater purpose, such as decision support in business or greater understanding in mathematics or efficient wrangling and presentation of information in information and library science.
You may have looked to the nature of the learning objectives in each division. Students in library science gain knowledge about knowledge; that is, a taxonomy of the world’s knowledge; in business, organizational skills; in engineering, formulas, metrics, and material skills.
The differing ethical considerations rooted in those divisions may have come up. Those would be, in arts and sciences, the humanistic views as well as the appropriate application of results in sciences and mathematics; in library and information science, issues of privacy of data, its quality, retention, and access; in engineering, reliability of work products and associated responsibility; in business, the myriad concerns of fairness and deployment that emerge regularly with regard to the practices of large companies.
You may have asked higher-level questions about the epistemology of each division in order to formulate its manifestation in computing. Students learn proper construction techniques under constraints in engineering; theory and modeling of the real world in math; tracking, handling, and anticipation of transactions in business; the shapes and demands of bodies of knowledge in library science. Yet computer science encompasses and informs many of these aspects of knowledge.
None of these considerations drives a determinate choice. Insofar as computer science boasts theoretical respectability way beyond management tools, it’s not business; computer science is generally not empirical, so it’s not science; and computer science is not governed by certified practices and metrics, as is engineering. We arrive at a plainly philosophical question: What should it be?
Your institution has already answered the question of placement, at least operationally, at least for now. You yourself, dear reader, may have participated in such a decision, and dabbled in the philosophy of computing to inform it.
References
1. Denning, P.J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., Turner, A.J., and Young, P.R. (1989). Computing as a discipline. Communications of the ACM. January 1989 32(1).
2. Denning, P.J. (1985). The Science of Computing: What is computer science? American Scientist, 73(1), 16–19.
3. Eden, A.H. (2007). Three paradigms of computer science. Minds and machines, 17(2), 135-167.
4. Knuth, D.E. (1974). Computer Science and its Relation to Mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 81(4), 323–343.
5. Olson, P.C. (1999) The placement of the study of computing in academic organizations. Ph.D. Thesis, The Claremont Graduate University. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
6. Rapaport, W.J. (2023). Philosophy of Computer Science: An Introduction to the Issues and the Literature. Wiley Blackwell.
7. Shagrir, O. (1999). What is Computer Science About? The Monist, 82(1), 131–149.
Robin K. Hill is a lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and an affiliate of both the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies and the Wyoming Institute for Humanities Research at the University of Wyoming. She has been a member of ACM since 1978.
Such a fun way to enjoy unblocked games! Hypackel Unblocked Games