pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26084 · v1 · pith:YN4JBGXNnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 💻 cs.CY

What is 'undone computer science'?

Chantal Enguehard , Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni , Alberto Naibo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 19:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords undone sciencecomputer scienceepistemologyethicsscience and technology studiesresearch paradigmsneglected questionsdisciplinary structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

The structure of computer science and its paradigms enable the identification of crucial epistemological and ethical questions that remain undone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper applies the concept of 'undone science'—research questions neglected despite deserving exploration—to computer science. It examines whether the discipline's sociological, economic, and political structures, along with its shaping paradigms, allow for spotting important epistemological and ethical questions. A reader would care because addressing these could influence how computer science develops and is conceived. The work positions this as a way to highlight areas left unfunded or ignored.

Core claim

By transferring the undone science framework to computer science, the paper establishes that the field's organization and paradigms make it possible to identify epistemological and ethical questions crucial for its development and conception, questions that are currently neglected.

What carries the argument

The 'undone science' concept, which refers to research questions neglected, ignored, or left unfunded even though they deserve exploration, applied as a lens to computer science.

If this is right

  • The paradigms in computer science shape which questions get explored and which do not.
  • Sociological, economic, and political dimensions influence the identification of undone questions in the field.
  • Exploring these undone questions is crucial for the ethical and epistemological development of computer science.
  • This enables a special issue to examine specific instances of such questions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Funding bodies could use this lens to redirect resources toward previously ignored areas in computing.
  • It suggests examining how specific paradigms like efficiency or scalability marginalize certain ethical concerns.
  • Case studies in the special issue could test the transfer by surfacing concrete examples.
  • Connections might emerge to similar undone research in adjacent technical fields.

Load-bearing premise

That the undone science framework from social sciences transfers directly to computer science to reliably identify questions deserving exploration.

What would settle it

Finding that no new crucial epistemological or ethical questions are identified when the undone science lens is applied to computer science beyond existing discussions.

read the original abstract

The concept of 'undone science' emerged in the 2010s in research in social sciences at the intersection of studies on social movements and of science and technology studies. It refers to research questions that are neglected, ignored, or left unfunded, even though they deserve to be explored. The aim of this special issue is to apply this concept to computer science, by examining whether the way this discipline is structured (including its sociological, economic, and political dimensions), as well as the paradigms that shape it, make it possible to identify epistemological and ethical questions that are crucial for its development and conception.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is an editorial introducing the 'undone science' concept from social sciences and STS, which denotes neglected but deserving research questions. It frames a special issue by proposing that computer science's sociological, economic, political structures and paradigms can surface important epistemological and ethical questions for the field's development and conception.

Significance. As an editorial, the piece sets a programmatic agenda for critical inquiry into neglected areas of computer science. Its value lies in opening space for the special issue contributions rather than in presenting tested results; the transfer of the undone-science framework is asserted as feasible but receives no validation, case studies, or derivations within the text itself.

minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and framing could more clearly distinguish the editorial's role (setting the special-issue premise) from any empirical claim about the framework's direct applicability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive review of the manuscript and their recommendation to accept it as an editorial introducing the special issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framing premise independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper is an editorial that imports the 'undone science' concept from external social-science literature and states its programmatic aim without any derivation, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citation chains. The central claim—that structural examination of computer science can surface epistemological and ethical questions—is presented as a premise for the special issue rather than a result obtained by reducing prior steps to the paper's own inputs. No load-bearing step matches any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is conceptual and rests on the prior definition of undone science; no free parameters, new entities, or mathematical axioms are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The undone science concept developed in social sciences can be transferred to computer science to identify neglected questions.
    Invoked in the abstract as the basis for examining CS structures and paradigms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5625 in / 1158 out tokens · 38663 ms · 2026-06-29T19:21:01.025168+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ‘The Grey Hoodie project: Big tobacco, big tech, and the threat on academic integrity’

    Abdalla, Mohamed and Moustafa Abdalla (2021). ‘The Grey Hoodie project: Big tobacco, big tech, and the threat on academic integrity’. In:Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. AIES ’21. ACM, pp. 287–297.doi:10.1145/3461702.3462563

    work page doi:10.1145/3461702.3462563 2021

  2. [2]

    ‘Global and Local Implications of Computational Artifacts’

    Depaz, Pierre (2026). ‘Global and Local Implications of Computational Artifacts’. In:Philosophia Scientiae30-2, pp. 65–79.doi:10.4000/16955. 10

    work page doi:10.4000/16955 2026

  3. [3]

    (2026a).Philosophia Scientiæ30-2:Undone Computer Science

    Enguehard, Chantal, Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni and Alberto Naibo, eds. (2026a).Philosophia Scientiæ30-2:Undone Computer Science. Paris: Éditions Kimé.issn: 1775-4283.doi: 10 . 4000 / 16959. eprint: https : / / journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/5171. — (2026b). ‘Qu’est-ce que la science informatique non faite?’ In:Philosophia Scientiae30-2, pp....

    work page doi:10.4000/16952

  4. [4]

    Hess (2009)

    Frickel, Scott, Sahra Gibbon, Jeff Howard, Joanna Kempner, Gwen Ottinger and David J. Hess (2009). ‘Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting’. In:Science, Technology, & Human Values35(4), pp. 444–473.issn: 1552-8251.doi: 10 . 1177 / 0162243909345836

    2009

  5. [5]

    ‘The contestation of tech ethics: A sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice’

    Green, Ben (2021). ‘The contestation of tech ethics: A sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice’. In:Journal of Social Computing2(3), pp. 209–225.issn: 2688-5255.doi:10.23919/jsc.2021.0018

    work page doi:10.23919/jsc.2021.0018 2021

  6. [6]

    ‘How The Social Construction of Disciplinary Boundaries and Disciplinary Hierarchies Shapes What Computer Science Gets Done’

    Hermans, Felienne (2026). ‘How The Social Construction of Disciplinary Boundaries and Disciplinary Hierarchies Shapes What Computer Science Gets Done’. In:Philosophia Scientiae30-2, pp. 81–108.doi:10.4000/16956

    work page doi:10.4000/16956 2026

  7. [7]

    (2016).Undone Science: Social movements, mobilized publics, and industrial transitions

    Hess, David J. (2016).Undone Science: Social movements, mobilized publics, and industrial transitions. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.isbn: 978-0- 262-03513-2.doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262035132.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262035132.001.0001 2016

  8. [8]

    ‘The hardware lottery’

    Hooker, Sara (2021). ‘The hardware lottery’. In:Communications of the ACM 64(12), pp. 58–65.issn: 1557-7317.doi:10.1145/3467017

    work page doi:10.1145/3467017 2021

  9. [9]

    Paris: Seuil.isbn: 978-2-0200-2201-9

    Illich, Ivan (1973).La Convivialité. Paris: Seuil.isbn: 978-2-0200-2201-9

    1973

  10. [10]

    (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed., enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    1970

  11. [11]

    Beverly Hills; Londres: Sage Publications

    Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1979).Laboratory Life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills; Londres: Sage Publications. isbn: 0-8039-0993-4

    1979

  12. [12]

    ‘Let us not put all our eggs in one basket’

    Maraninchi, Florence (2022). ‘Let us not put all our eggs in one basket’. In:Communications of the ACM65(9), pp. 35–37.issn: 1557-7317.doi: 10.1145/3528088

    work page doi:10.1145/3528088 2022

  13. [13]

    ‘Exploration or algorithm? The Undone Science before the algorithms’

    Nafus, Dawn (2018). ‘Exploration or algorithm? The Undone Science before the algorithms’. In:Cultural Anthropology33(3), pp. 368–374.issn: 0886-7356. doi:10.14506/ca33.3.03

    work page doi:10.14506/ca33.3.03 2018

  14. [14]

    ‘Conviviality for Digital Degrowth’

    Quinton, Sophie and Jean-Bernard Stefani (2026). ‘Conviviality for Digital Degrowth’. In:Philosophia Scientiae30-2, pp. 41–63.doi:10.4000/16954. 11

    work page doi:10.4000/16954 2026

  15. [15]

    ‘Machine Learning, Understanding, and Interaction’

    Saint-Germier, Pierre, Benjamin Matuszewski and Frédéric Bevilacqua (2026). ‘Machine Learning, Understanding, and Interaction’. In:Philosophia Scientiae30-2, pp. 17–39.doi:10.4000/16953

    work page doi:10.4000/16953 2026

  16. [16]

    ‘Sociologie des laboratoires: un bilan critique’

    Woolgar, Steve (1984). ‘Sociologie des laboratoires: un bilan critique’. In: Cahiers S.T.S. (Science – Technologies – Société)5, pp. 76–91. 12

    1984