Course Project

Conversations analyzing computing systems often occur in academic articles, blogs, and social media. Becoming a citizen of the “society of tech” involves participating in this discourse critically and staying informed. As a means to foster your participation, this class project asks you to research a specific technology or system and attempt to analyze, criticize, and reimagine it.

So far, your work as a computer scientist has likely focused on building computer systems. In this project, and throughout the class, you will consider such systems within the context of larger political and social questions. As such, much of your work in this project will be to analyze how specific technical decisions come to be and how they can have broad, rippling effects.

The project is divided into parts, each of which you will turn in independently:

Part zero: Select a Topic
Part one: Technologist
Part two: Scholar
Part three: Citizen
Part four: Creator (OPTIONAL)

Part Zero: Select a Topic

In this part, your primary task is to select a research topic. If you’re stuck, consider the list of example areas below.

In about one sentence you will submit this idea to us. We’ll give you feedback on your scope—e.g. is your subject too broad, too narrow, or too frequently chosen? You’ll then refine your subject based on the feedback and use that new refined topic for the remaining parts.

You will also, in at most a few sentences describe how, if at all, you will use AI assistance in all future phases of the project. We will review your answer to make sure it aligns with the rules in the syllabus and you will confirm in all remaining phases that you followed the approach you indicated in part zero.

Submissions must be:

Produced individually
Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Jan 16 at 11:59 pm

Figures from the 1963 “Proposal for a Study to Determine the Feasibility of a Simplified Face Recognition Machine” by Dr. W. W. Bledsoe of Panoramic Research, Inc.

Part One: Technologist

Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Jan 30 at 11:59 pm

Computing systems appear throughout your daily life. Here, in this project, we ask you to focus on one of those systems and to learn more about it. The first part of analyzing such a sociotechnical system, and thus the first part of this project, is to understand and explain it. While a computer science education provides you a unique technical background to understand such systems, it also poses difficulties in reaching a non-technical audience.

In this assignment, we ask you to:

Use the refined topic you identified in part zero.
Research the topic, keeping track of your sources along the way.
- Go beyond the suggested articles. Identify related research papers, technical journal articles, textbooks, and blog posts.
In approximately one page, explain to a general audience how your chosen system works.
- You may assume the audience is college educated, but be sure to carefully explain any jargon. We will often encourage you to include diagrams to help your explanation.
Consider questions such as:
- What’s the conceptual or theoretical background on which this technology or system is based?
- What data does the system require as inputs? What are its outputs?
  - (if yours is a cyber-physical system) How does it interact with the physical world?
  - What types of sensors does it use? What are their limitations?
- What algorithms does it use? How does it work? What are some relevant implementation details?
- What is the current state of the art of this technology? What are its current limitations?
Looking ahead to the next assignment, you may find it useful to consider the historical arcs that produced this technology. But generally leave discussion of this history to part two (unless it directly informs the function of your technology).
- For example, one cannot consider early American analog and electronic computers without also considering their role in the Manhattan Project.

Submissions must be:

Produced individually;
1-2 pages in length (from 400 words to 1000 words);
And contain five citations (as embedded links in the text or in a bibliography).
Have a short section after everything else labeled “AI Assistance” where you describe how, if at all, you used AI and confirming you used it no more than you said you would in part-0.
Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Jan 30 at 11:59 pm

Patsy Simmers, holding ENIAC board; Gail Taylor, holding EDVAC board; Milly Beck, holding ORDVAC board; and Norma Stec, holding BRLESC-I board. Source: U.S. Army/ARL Technical Library Archives

Part Two: Scholar

Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Feb 20 at 11:59 pm

In the second part of the course project, we ask you to:

Use the same research subject as from part one.
Then, using your research, articulate a sequence of events that brought it into existence in its current form. Telling the history of a technology’s development necessarily involves identifying key events and when they occurred, but also how these events fit together to tell an overall story.
When doing so, consider ideas such as these – do not organize your writing by having sections for each of these questions but instead consider them as guides in explaining the historical events and why they are important:
- How have the technical and social components of the system changed over time?
- Who are the stakeholders of the system? Think about its designers, funders, beneficiaries and benefactors. How did they influence the history?
- What are possible blind-spots? What people might be overlooked in the development of these systems? What is underappreciated?
- Are there moral positions not accounted for in the discussions you’ve observed? Are there implicit arguments that deserve interrogation?

Submissions must be:

Produced individually;
1-2 pages in length (from 400 words to 1000 words);
And contain five citations (as embedded links in the text or in a bibliography). (These can overlap with the citations in part-1 but only if you use them for new information that is in your historical analysis, so citations that are only about how the technology works cannot count toward the part-2 citations.)
Have a short section after everything else labeled “AI Assistance” where you describe how, if at all, you used AI and confirming you used it no more than you said you would in part-0.
Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Feb 20 at 11:59 pm

From 'The Seattle that might have been' by the Seattle Times: Virgil Bogue’s 'Plan of Seattle' was inspired by the design of European cities. His proposal called for leafy, radial boulevards that would converge on a Beaux Arts Civic Center. Voters rejected the proposal in 1912. (Seattle Municipal Plans Commission / Seattle Public Library)

Part Three: Citizen

Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Mar 13 at 11:59 pm

In the final (required) part of the project, you will synthesize how the technology works (part 1) and how the technology came to be (part 2), with your analysis of the technology’s impacts on society (part 3). Add a third section to your paper and submit all three parts as a single “final” project that can be read as one paper. You can edit your previous submissions to make a more coherent presentation and you should address the feedback you received on parts 1 and 2.

The next part of your paper should specifically address at least:

What you consider to be the positive and negative impacts the technology has already had on society
What you consider to be likely future impacts of the technology on society
How the technology could be reimagined to improve its impact
What actions (and by whom) you advocate to achieve this reimagining

Try to make a convincing argument using some of the strategies we observed in class. While this part is, clearly, more about your opinion as an informed citizen, you should still justify your claims with evidence and citation as much as possible.

Expect to write about an additional 400-1000 words (i.e., part three should not be more work than the other parts).

Submissions must be:

Produced Individually;
4-6 pages in length (from 1200 words to 3000 words—including parts one and two);
Include all previous citations and any new ones that are relevant (as embedded links in the text or in bibliography).
Have a short section after everything else labeled “AI Assistance” where you describe how, if at all, you used AI and confirming you used it no more than you said you would in part-0.
Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Mar 13 at 11:59 pm

Computer scientist Margaret Hamilton poses with the Apollo guidance software she and her team developed at MIT. Source: MIT News Office

Part Four: Creator (Optional)

Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Mar 13 at 11:59 pm

Part 4 is a new addition to the CSE 480 project that we are piloting in Winter 2026. Completion of this part is completely optional and can be considered "extra credit". A complete part 4 submission can substitute (make up) for 1 missed class OR 2 discussion posts.

In this optional component of the course project, we ask you to move beyond analysis and into speculative creation. In the preceeding parts of this project, you analyzed how your technology works, traced its historical development, and evaluated its societal impacts. Now, go one step further by creating an artifact that showcases or challenges an ethical issue you explored in your written work.

An artifact is an intentionally-designed object (either physical or digital) that embodies the knowledge and values of its creator. We explored or created artifacts during Day 4: Data Politics (Winner’s “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”), Day 6: Moral Machines (design a better moral machines experiment), Day 14: How Does It Work? (jailbreak, then align an LLM), and beyond.

By creating something yourself, you will experience first-hand how ethical concerns surface during implementation of sociotechnical systems. Your artifact should be small and reflective rather than polished and production-ready. What matters is not the technical sophistication (so physical sketches can ‘do the trick’), but rather the intellectual work of imagining how ethical and societal concerns manifest in real-world systems. Your artifact could take (but is not limited to) one of these forms:

A prototype or mockup demonstrating how a particular bias or harm manifests in your sociotechnical system
A visualization revealing hidden patterns, assumptions, or impacts in relevant data or algorithms
A simulation showing consequences of specific design decisions for your sociotechnical system
A counter-design proposing how the technology you studied could work differently (and therefore have different impacts?)
An interactive demonstration that allows others to explore an ethical tension you identified

Feel free to talk with Nandini or James if you want to workshop artifact ideas for your sociotechnical system!

Along with your artifact, submit a written summary (approximately 50 - 100 words) of what your artifact is, what purpose your artifact serves, and how we can access or use your artifact. Additionally, submit a reflection (approximately 100 - 200 words) responding to one of the following prompts:

What ethical issue for your written project did you attempt to explore through this artificat?
How did the process of making this artifact change your understanding of the sociotechnical system you studied? What surprised you or complicated your initial thinking?
What design tradeoffs did you encounter? What choices did you have to make, and why did you make them?
What could not be represented in or by your artifact? Did any important ethical or societal dimensions resist (straightforward) translation into your artifact?
How does this artifact connect to and extend your analysis from your written project work?

NOTE: Artifacts cannot be presentations or slide decks. The goal is to create something that does or shows rather than something that tells.

Submissions must be:

Produced individually
Include the artifact itself (submitted as a file, link, video demonstration, or other appropriate format)
Include a written summary (50 - 100 words) of your artifact and instructions for how to engage with it
Include a reflection (100 - 200 words) responding to one of the prompts above
Have a short section after everything else labeled “AI Assistance” where you describe how, if at all, you used AI. In contrast to the other project parts, there are NO restrictions on the use of AI for creating your artifact. The written portions of Part 4 should still conform to your AI usage plan from Part 0.
Turned in to Canvas by Fri, Mar 13 at 11:59 pm

Guidance

For the course project, select a specific subject related to issues concerning a technology, idea, or sociotechnical system. Below we list a number of areas from which you might choose that subject. We welcome project proposals outside of these areas. Use the accompanying references to jump-start your research and get a feel for discussions surrounding the issue.

The project is small in scope so be sure to be specific with what you choose. For example, facial recognition would not be an appropriate focus—it’s too broad. Instead, you could select one aspect of facial recognition technology, such as automated gender recognition as Os Keyes does in “The Misgendering Machine.” Alternatively, you might investigate the use of facial recognition in a specific social context such as in public housing.

Contact the instructor if you’re wondering whether the subject of your project is appropriately scoped.

Example projects

Here are three example projects, in their final submission form, from previous quarters. Note that these submissions were longer than was required and were from an earlier version in which Part 3 was not as clearly delineated. You may think of these examples as an ideal which does not need to be copied. You may not choose the same or very similar topics for your own project.

Example project one clearly contains all parts of the project:

“Introduction” and “Debuggers in a Nutshell” approximately encompass part one.
“An Abbreviated History” approximately encompasses part two. It is shorter because the student had already met the length requirement and included many historical examples in part one.
“An Academic Blindspot” and “The Future?” encompass the additional writing of part three.

Example project two does not have as clearly separable parts, as does the above example, but it is no worse for it. Still, this project might have also spent more time on the specific computational means of content moderation. Nevertheless, you might think of the following as its parts:

Until “Facebook is an incredibly young company” approximately encompasses part one.
From “Facebook is an incredibly young company” on to the “Facebook now has a choice to make” approximately encompasses part two.
From “Facebook now has a choice to make” on approximately encompasses the additional writing of part three.

Example project three uses its three separate headings to delineate between the parts of the project. This one has a more scholarly style both in terms of citations and phrasing and it approaches giving suggestions about the topics in a more forward manner. It’s a good read.