pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24160 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.CY

The Ethical Knowledge Gap: Dispersed Knowledge, Sensemaking Failures, and Epistemic Dependence

Jan Gogoll This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords ethical software developmentdispersed knowledgesensemakingepistemic dependenceethical knowledge gapsoftware engineering ethicsorganizational knowledge
0
0 comments X

The pith

The gap between ethical intention and implementation in software development is a structural epistemic condition produced by dispersed knowledge, sensemaking failures, and credibility loss.

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

The paper contends that despite years of ethics codes and frameworks, software development continues to miss ethical considerations because the necessary knowledge does not reach the people making decisions. It identifies three mechanisms that together create this ethical knowledge gap: relevant details are scattered across different jobs without a system to pull them together, engineering ways of thinking hide the moral implications of technical choices, and information loses its weight when it moves between roles. This matters because it suggests that the problem is not bad people or missing rules but how organizations handle what they know. If accurate, then solutions must focus on redesigning information flows rather than more training alone.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ethical knowledge gap exists as a condition where the knowledge required for ethically informed decision-making is systematically unavailable at the point of decision, even when the organization as a whole possesses it. This condition results from the interaction of three mechanisms: ethically relevant knowledge being constitutively distributed across roles and largely tacit with no spontaneous aggregation like the price system, an interpretive deficit in engineering culture that obscures ethical dimensions, and credibility attenuation for hybrid judgments across role boundaries.

What carries the argument

The ethical knowledge gap, arising from dispersed ethical knowledge without aggregation mechanisms, sensemaking deficits in engineering culture, and attenuated epistemic dependence across organizational roles.

If this is right

  • Since each of the three mechanisms is independently sufficient, interventions targeting only one will likely leave the gap intact.
  • The absence of a price-like system for ethical knowledge means organizations must deliberately create aggregation processes.
  • Engineering sensemaking frameworks need explicit incorporation of ethical dimensions to make them visible during technical work.
  • Hybrid roles or interfaces that maintain credibility for ethical assessments can help prevent loss of force when knowledge crosses boundaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This diagnosis could extend to other technical fields where knowledge is role-specific, such as hardware design or data science.
  • Testing the mechanisms might involve case studies of failed projects to trace where knowledge existed but was not used at decision points.
  • The analysis implies that participatory design methods may fail if they do not account for credibility attenuation between stakeholders.

Load-bearing premise

Ethically relevant knowledge is spread across roles in a way that prevents it from combining automatically, technical culture hides its ethical meaning, and it loses credibility when shared between different parts of the organization.

What would settle it

A software development team or organization that exhibits no ethical knowledge gap despite having dispersed roles, standard engineering sensemaking, and cross-role communication would challenge the claim that these mechanisms are sufficient to produce the gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24160 by Jan Gogoll.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Forms of credibility attenuation 19 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ethical software development remains stubbornly difficult despite two decades of normative frameworks, professional codes, and participatory methodologies. This paper offers a diagnostic rather than prescriptive contribution: it argues that the persistent gap between ethical intention and ethical implementation is a structural epistemic condition, not primarily a failure of will, education, or normative guidance. Three independently sufficient mechanisms interact to produce what I call the ethical knowledge gap -- a condition in which the knowledge required for ethically informed decision-making is systematically unavailable at the point of decision, even when the organization as a whole possesses it. First, drawing on Hayek's (1945) analysis of dispersed knowledge and its organizational extensions, the paper establishes that ethically relevant knowledge in software development is constitutively distributed across roles, largely tacit, and -- unlike efficiency-related knowledge -- unsupported by any spontaneous aggregation mechanism analogous to the price system. Second, an interpretive deficit, analyzed through Weick's sensemaking framework and the literature on framing and epistemic cultures, renders developers unable to recognize the ethical significance of what they know: the sensemaking apparatus of engineering culture makes technical decisions intelligible while systematically obscuring their ethical dimensions. Third, a credibility attenuation, analyzed through the social epistemology of testimony and epistemic dependence, discounts developers' observations as they cross organizational role boundaries, so that hybrid judgments combining technical detail with ethical assessment lose their epistemic force.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the persistent gap between ethical intention and implementation in software development is a structural epistemic condition—the 'ethical knowledge gap'—rather than a failure of will, education, or normative guidance. It identifies three independently sufficient and interacting mechanisms: (1) constitutively dispersed and tacit ethical knowledge lacking spontaneous aggregation (Hayek 1945 and organizational extensions), (2) sensemaking failures in engineering culture that obscure ethical dimensions (Weick), and (3) credibility attenuation of hybrid technical-ethical judgments across role boundaries (testimony and epistemic dependence literature). The contribution is explicitly diagnostic and interpretive.

Significance. If the synthesis holds, it offers a useful reframing of computing ethics as an epistemic rather than primarily normative problem, explaining the limited impact of existing frameworks through established theories from economics, organizational studies, and social epistemology. The paper's strength is its coherent interdisciplinary integration applied to software development; this could stimulate empirical work on knowledge flows in engineering teams and organizational designs that better surface ethical considerations.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: the claim that the three mechanisms are 'independently sufficient' is central to the explanatory structure but is not demonstrated; the text develops their interaction and joint production of the gap without separate arguments or illustrations showing that any one mechanism alone would suffice in the absence of the others.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The single major comment identifies a genuine gap between the abstract's phrasing and the supporting argumentation in the body of the paper. We address it directly below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the claim that the three mechanisms are 'independently sufficient' is central to the explanatory structure but is not demonstrated; the text develops their interaction and joint production of the gap without separate arguments or illustrations showing that any one mechanism alone would suffice in the absence of the others.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's use of 'independently sufficient' is not backed by explicit, standalone demonstrations or counterfactual illustrations in the current text. The three sections develop each mechanism through distinct literatures (Hayek on dispersed knowledge, Weick on sensemaking, and social epistemology on testimony), which in principle establish that each can disrupt the availability of ethical knowledge at decision points. However, the manuscript foregrounds their interaction within software organizations rather than isolating each one's sufficiency. To correct this, we will (1) revise the abstract to state that the mechanisms are 'each capable of producing the gap on its own, as shown by the cited theoretical traditions, while typically interacting in practice' and (2) add a short paragraph in the introduction with brief hypothetical scenarios or references to existing cases in which one mechanism predominates. These changes will be made in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; interpretive synthesis of external frameworks

full rationale

The paper advances a diagnostic conceptual synthesis by applying three independent external theoretical frameworks (Hayek 1945 on dispersed knowledge, Weick on sensemaking, and social epistemology of testimony) to software development contexts. No load-bearing step reduces by definition, by fitted parameter, or by self-citation chain to the paper's own inputs; the central claim is an interpretive mapping rather than a derivation or prediction that loops back. The argument remains self-contained against external benchmarks because its premises are drawn from cited sources that pre-exist the present work and are not internally redefined or fitted here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper draws its central claim from three established theoretical traditions without new empirical data, formal proofs, or independent falsifiable tests; the 'ethical knowledge gap' is introduced as a new descriptive entity whose existence is asserted rather than measured.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Hayek's (1945) analysis of dispersed knowledge and its organizational extensions applies directly to ethically relevant knowledge in software development
    Invoked to establish that such knowledge is constitutively distributed, largely tacit, and lacks a spontaneous aggregation mechanism.
  • domain assumption Weick's sensemaking framework and the literature on framing and epistemic cultures explain developers' inability to recognize ethical significance
    Used to claim that engineering culture renders technical decisions intelligible while obscuring ethical dimensions.
  • domain assumption Social epistemology of testimony and epistemic dependence shows that developers' observations lose epistemic force when crossing role boundaries
    Supports the claim that hybrid technical-ethical judgments are discounted.
invented entities (1)
  • ethical knowledge gap no independent evidence
    purpose: To name the condition in which ethically required knowledge is systematically unavailable at the point of decision despite being possessed by the organization as a whole
    New term introduced to capture the interaction of the three mechanisms; no independent empirical handle is supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1689 out tokens · 75342 ms · 2026-05-07T17:48:50.622774+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

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Formal and Real Authority in Organizations

    Aghion, P. and Tirole, J. (1997). “Formal and Real Authority in Organizations.” Journal of Political Economy, 105(1), 1–29

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Mar- ket Mechanism

    Akerlof, G.A. (1970). “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Mar- ket Mechanism.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500

    work page 1970

  3. [3]

    Knowledge Management in Distributed Software Development Teams

    Boden, A., Avram, G., Bannon, L., and Wulf, V. (2009). “Knowledge Management in Distributed Software Development Teams.” InProceedings of the 2009 International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    AI’s Use of Knowledge in Society

    Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitzig, Z. (2025). “AI’s Use of Knowledge in Society.” NBER Working Paper / Book Chapter

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Identifi- cation of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the Design of Collaboration and Awareness Tools

    Cataldo, M., Wagstrom, P.A., Herbsleb, J.D., and Carley, K.M. (2006). “Identifi- cation of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the Design of Collaboration and Awareness Tools.” InProceedings of CSCW 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    The Nature of the Firm

    Coase, R.H. (1937). “The Nature of the Firm.”Economica, 4(16), 386–405

    work page 1937

  7. [7]

    (1980).The Social Control of Technology

    Collingridge, D. (1980).The Social Control of Technology. London: Frances Pinter

    work page 1980

  8. [8]

    Seeking the Source: Software Source Code as a Social and Technical Artifact

    De Souza, C., Froehlich, J., & Dourish, P. (2005). “Seeking the Source: Software Source Code as a Social and Technical Artifact.” InProceedings of the 2005 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work(pp. 197–206)

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams

    Edmondson, A. (1999). “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383

    work page 1999

  10. [10]

    (1995).Reasoning About Knowledge

    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M.Y. (1995).Reasoning About Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    work page 1995

  11. [11]

    (2011).Knowledge on Trust

    Faulkner, P. (2011).Knowledge on Trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    The Limits to Designed Orders: Authority under ‘Distributed Knowledge’ Conditions

    Foss, K. and Foss, N.J. (2006). “The Limits to Designed Orders: Authority under ‘Distributed Knowledge’ Conditions.”The Review of Austrian Economics, 19(4), 261–274

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    The Use of Knowledge in Firms

    Foss, N.J. (1999). “The Use of Knowledge in Firms.”Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 155(3), 458–486

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    Hayek and Organizational Studies

    Foss, N.J. and Klein, P.G. (2013). “Hayek and Organizational Studies.” SMG Work- ing Paper. 31

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    (2007).Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing

    Fricker, M. (2007).Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    and Hendry, D.G

    Friedman, B. and Hendry, D.G. (2019).Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    & Zuber, N

    Gogoll, J. & Zuber, N. (2026).Introduction to Ethical Software Development. Springer Nature

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?

    Goldman, A.I. (2001). “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?”Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm

    Grant, R.M. (1996). “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm.”Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    Epistemic Dependence

    Hardwig, J. (1985). “Epistemic Dependence.”The Journal of Philosophy, 82(7), 335– 349

    work page 1985

  21. [21]

    The Use of Knowledge in Society

    Hayek, F.A. (1945). “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530

    work page 1945

  22. [22]

    (1988).The Fatal Conceit

    Hayek, F.A. (1988).The Fatal Conceit. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

    work page 1988

  23. [23]

    An Empirical Study of Speed and Com- munication in Globally Distributed Software Development

    Herbsleb, J.D. and Mockus, A. (2003). “An Empirical Study of Speed and Com- munication in Globally Distributed Software Development.”IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6), 481–494

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?

    Holstein, K., Vaughan, J.W., Daumé III, H., Dudík, M., & Wallach, H. (2019). “Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?” InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    (1995).Cognition in the Wild

    Hutchins, E. (1995).Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    work page 1995

  26. [26]

    Specific and General Knowledge, and Organizational Structure

    Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1995). “Specific and General Knowledge, and Organizational Structure.”Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(2), 4–18

    work page 1995

  27. [27]

    Framing Contests: Strategy Making under Uncertainty

    Kaplan, S. (2008). “Framing Contests: Strategy Making under Uncertainty.”Orga- nization Science, 19(5), 729–752

    work page 2008

  28. [28]

    (1999).Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge

    Knorr Cetina, K. (1999).Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 32

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    Tacit Knowledge Acqui- sition and Sharing in a Project Work Context

    Koskinen, K.U., Pihlanto, P., & Vanharanta, H. (2003). “Tacit Knowledge Acqui- sition and Sharing in a Project Work Context.”International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 281–290

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    Epistemic Injustice in Workplace Hierarchies: Power, Knowledge and Status

    Kwok, C. (2021). “Epistemic Injustice in Workplace Hierarchies: Power, Knowledge and Status.”Philosophy and Social Criticism

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Exploring the Duality be- tween Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the ‘Mirroring’ Hypoth- esis

    MacCormack, A., Rusnak, J., & Baldwin, C.Y. (2012). “Exploring the Duality be- tween Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the ‘Mirroring’ Hypoth- esis.”Research Policy, 41(8), 1309–1324

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fair- ness in AI

    Madaio, M.A., Stark, L., Vaughan, J.W., & Wallach, H. (2020). “Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fair- ness in AI.” InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward

    Maitlis, S. & Christianson, M.K. (2014). “Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward.”The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design

    Manders-Huits, N. (2011). “What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design.”Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 271–287

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    (2004).Wertwissen: Was Organisationen wirklich bewegt

    Meynhardt, T. (2004).Wertwissen: Was Organisationen wirklich bewegt. Münster: Waxmann

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World

    Morrison, E.W. & Milliken, F.J. (2000). “Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World.”Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725

    work page 2000

  37. [37]

    Soft Issues That Limit Sharing of Tacit Knowledge within Software Development Project Teams

    Mtsweni, E.S. & Mavetera, N. (2019). “Soft Issues That Limit Sharing of Tacit Knowledge within Software Development Project Teams.” In2019 IEEE AFRICON (pp. 1–8). IEEE

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap

    Nuseibeh, B. & Easterbrook, S. (2000). “Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap.” InProceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering(pp. 35–46)

    work page 2000

  39. [39]

    Foregrounding Ethics in Agile and Iterative Development

    Olsson, T. and Väänänen, K. (2021). “Foregrounding Ethics in Agile and Iterative Development.” Working Paper / Conference Contribution

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    (1966).The Tacit Dimension

    Polanyi, M. (1966).The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

    work page 1966

  41. [41]

    Where Responsible AI Meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on Enablers for Shifting Organizational Practices

    Rakova, B., Yang, J., Cramer, H., & Chowdhury, R. (2021). “Where Responsible AI Meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on Enablers for Shifting Organizational Practices.”Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–23. 33

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Acquiring and Sharing Tacit Knowledge in Software Development Teams: An Empirical Study

    Ryan, S. & O’Connor, R.V. (2013). “Acquiring and Sharing Tacit Knowledge in Software Development Teams: An Empirical Study.”Information and Software Tech- nology, 55(9), 1614–1624

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Organizations and Markets

    Simon, H.A. (1991). “Organizations and Markets.”Journal of Economic Perspec- tives, 5(2), 25–44

    work page 1991

  44. [44]

    Job Market Signaling

    Spence, M. (1973). “Job Market Signaling.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374

    work page 1973

  45. [45]

    & Bowker, G

    Star, S.L. & Bowker, G. (1999).Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Conse- quences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    work page 1999

  46. [46]

    The Theory of ‘Screening’, Education, and the Distribution of Income

    Stiglitz, J.E. (1975). “The Theory of ‘Screening’, Education, and the Distribution of Income.”The American Economic Review, 65(3), 283–300

    work page 1975

  47. [47]

    Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation

    Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013). “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.”Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many Hands

    Thompson, D.F. (1980). “Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many Hands.”The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 905–916

    work page 1980

  49. [49]

    (2012).The Institutional Logics Per- spective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process

    Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012).The Institutional Logics Per- spective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Construc- tionist Approach

    Tsoukas, H. (1996). “The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Construc- tionist Approach.”Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 11–25

    work page 1996

  51. [51]

    Translating Values into Design Requirements

    Van de Poel, I. (2013). “Translating Values into Design Requirements.” InPhilosophy and Engineering: Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process(pp. 253–266). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    (1995).Sensemaking in Organizations

    Weick, K.E. (1995).Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    work page 1995

  53. [53]

    Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking

    Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., and Obstfeld, D. (2005). “Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking.”Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421

    work page 2005

  54. [54]

    Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives

    Williamson, O.E. (1991). “Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296

    work page 1991

  55. [55]

    Dislocated Accountabilities in the ‘AI Supply Chain’: Modularity and Developers’ Notions of Responsibility

    Widder, D.G. & Nafus, D. (2023). “Dislocated Accountabilities in the ‘AI Supply Chain’: Modularity and Developers’ Notions of Responsibility.”Big Data & Society, 10(1), 1–12. 34

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Language as a Source of Epistemic Injustice in Organisa- tions

    Wilmot, N.V. (2024). “Language as a Source of Epistemic Injustice in Organisa- tions.”Journal of Business Ethics

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics

    Wong, R.Y., Madaio, M.A., & Merrill, N. (2023). “Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics.”Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–27

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    (2012).Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief

    Zagzebski, L.T. (2012).Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 35

    work page 2012