Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DAVIS, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Report: Writing a Code of Ethics by E-Mail

My Adventures with Some Software Engineers

MICHAEL DAVIS

Illinois Institute of Technology

The Computer Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and the Association of Computing Machinery set up a joint committee (Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices [SEEPP]) to write a code of ethics for software engineers. Work was to be "primarily" by e-mail. SEEPP has now completed its work. Acting as participant observers, we concluded the following: (1) e-mail, while perhaps saving travel, did not (as hoped) speed the process of code writing; (2) e-mail exchanges resembled those of conventional mail rather than those via the phone; (3) e-mail was not as reliable as phone, fax, or conventional mail (a surprising number of messages went astray); (4) e-mail did not encourage communication among strangers, overcome apathy, or cure the effects of overcommitment; and (5) e-mail was no substitute for face-to-face meetings (indeed, it seemed to require some such meetings to work well).

Science Communication, Vol. 21, No. 4, 392-405 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547000021004005


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?