CRA-I Blog

The CRA-I Blog frequently shares news, timely information about the computing research industry community, and items of interest to the general community. Subscribe to blog emails here to stay connected.

CRA Quadrennial Paper: Preparing the Workforce for an AI-Driven Future

Computing Research Association – Industry (CRA-I) and Computing Research Association -– Education (CRA-E), two programmatic committees of the Computing Research Association (CRA), recently collaborated on a Quadrennial Paper examining the evolving demands of the AI-driven workforce. Every four years, CRA releases a series of Quadrennial Papers, offering insights on key issues within computing research that have the potential to address national priorities. 

The paper, Empowering the Future Workforce: Prioritizing Education for the AI-Accelerated Job Market, authored by Lisa Amini (IBM Research), Henry F. Korth (Lehigh University), Nita Patel (Otis), Evan Peck (University of Colorado Boulder), and Ben Zorn (Microsoft), underscores the essential role of education, policy, and industry collaboration in equipping workers for an AI-driven future.

The Changing Landscape of Work

AI is integrating into workplaces at an unprecedented pace, with 70 percent of surveyed CEOs believing it will significantly alter their business models within three years. While this transformation presents new opportunities, it also poses challenges — displacing traditional jobs and demanding entirely new skill sets. PwC’s 2024 AI Jobs Barometer has already identified significant shifts in the skills required across AI-exposed jobs, demonstrating the need for proactive workforce education.

Key Barriers to AI Workforce Readiness

The paper identifies several obstacles that could hinder workforce preparedness, including:

  • Limited AI Education Beyond Computing – AI education remains largely confined to computing disciplines, despite its growing impact across all fields.
  • High Technological and Cost Barriers – Access to cutting-edge AI models and computing infrastructure is expensive and unevenly distributed.
  • Rapid Skill Evolution – AI’s fast-changing landscape makes it difficult for educational institutions and industry to keep curricula up to date.
  • Security and Ethical Concerns – As AI increasingly influences decision-making, issues related to data privacy, misinformation, and bias must be addressed.

Recommendations for Workforce Resilience

To ensure a competitive and adaptable workforce, the paper outlines several key recommendations:

  • Expand AI education beyond computing – Encourage interdisciplinary AI education that integrates AI concepts into various fields.
  • Invest in accessible AI training – Support AI education in community colleges, workforce development programs, and non-traditional learning pathways.
  • Foster Human-AI collaboration – Shift focus from job replacement to AI-human teaming, enabling AI to enhance rather than replace human skills.
  • Partner with industry for upskilling – Companies should invest in lifelong learning programs, offering employees continuous AI skill development.
  • Strengthen responsible AI education – Broaden awareness of ethical AI use across education, industry, and policy sectors.

The Path Forward

AI is already transforming the job market, and preparing the workforce for this shift requires coordinated action from government, industry, and academia. By prioritizing AI literacy, upskilling, and responsible AI education, we can ensure that workers are equipped to navigate and thrive in the evolving technological landscape. Please see the full paper here, as well as the full series of 2024-2025 CRA Quadrennial Papers at cra.org/cra-quadrennial-papers.

What Computing Practitioners Are Saying About Undergraduate Computer Science Education

In a recent survey conducted by the Computing Research Association’s Industry committee  (CRA-I) titled the Practitioner-to-Professor (P2P) survey, over 1,000 computing professionals shared their insights on the current state of undergraduate computer science (CS) education. This work has been greatly benefited from the project’s advisor, Rahul Simha (George Washington University). The findings are crucial for aligning academic curricula with industry needs, ensuring that graduates are well-prepared for the workforce, while at the same time well-versed in the fundamentals of CS for a long-term career in a fast-evolving field.

Survey Overview

Launched in spring 2024, the survey gathered responses from 1,048 qualified professionals, primarily in software development roles. Notably, 54% of the respondents hold degrees in computer science, with a significant portion having over 21 years of experience in the field. This diverse pool highlights the importance of the feedback, reflecting a wide array of industry perspectives on necessary competencies for future graduates.

Key Findings

Curriculum Expansion

  • Respondents overwhelmingly support increasing the number of CS courses in undergraduate programs. On average, they recommend adding four courses, with a strong emphasis on Algorithms, Computer Architecture, and CS Theory. The ideal total number of CS courses is approximately 18.3, which translates to 3-4 semesters of coursework.
  • Additionally, there is a call for increasing foundational non-CS courses, particularly in areas like written communication, probability and statistics, and systems thinking, suggesting an average increase of 1.7 courses.

Importance of Soft Skills

  • The significance of soft skills was also highlighted. Respondents noted that while these skills can be taught, universities currently do a poor job of integrating them into the curriculum. Recommended improvements include more emphasis on oral communication skills and a broader liberal arts education, which could be more effective in developing these essential capabilities.

Role of Mathematics

  • The connection between mathematics and computer science is evident, with 65% of respondents expressing a love or interest in pursuing additional mathematics courses. The most crucial areas include Statistics, Linear Algebra, and Discrete Mathematics, underscoring their relevance to fields such as AI and data science.

Suggestions for Programming Education

  • Survey participants emphasized that problem-solving skills should take precedence over programming language proficiency. While it is important to understand one language deeply, exposure to multiple languages is also recommended, supporting the idea that adaptability is crucial in this ever-evolving field.

Database Education

  • In terms of database education, practitioners advocate for a balance between theoretical knowledge and practical experience, stressing the need for students to grasp key concepts like normal forms and relational algebra alongside hands-on experience with SQL.

The findings from the CRA P2P survey provide invaluable insights into how undergraduate computer science education can evolve to better meet the needs of the industry. As academia continues to foster partnerships with the tech industry, implementing these recommendations may ensure that graduates are not only knowledgeable but also equipped with the skills necessary for successful careers in computing.

Stay tuned for the full report available in early 2025, promising a deeper analysis of these findings and their implications for CS education. See the summary here

This project is being partially supported by the Division of Undergraduate Education at the U.S. National Science Foundation under Award #2110815 under a larger umbrella project called DEAP.

CCC and CRA-I Respond to NTIA Request for Comment on Ethical Guidelines for Research Using Pervasive Data

The following is by Haley Griffin and reposted from the Computing Community Consortium (CCC) blog. 

Last week, CRA-Industry, in collaboration with Computing Community Consortium (CCC), submitted a Response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce’s Request for Comments: Ethical Guidelines for Research Using Pervasive Data. The response was written by Nazanin Andalibi (University of Michigan), David Danks (University of California, San Diego), Haley Griffin (Computing Research Association), Mary Lou Maher (Computing Research Association), Jessica McClearn (Google), Chinasa T. Okolo (The Brookings Institution), Manish Parashar (University of Utah), Jessica Pater (Parkview Health), Katie Siek (Indiana University), Tammy Toscos (Parkview Health), Helen V. Wright (Computing Research Association), and Pamela Wisniewski (Vanderbilt University). 

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) was seeking, “public input on the potential writing of ethical guidelines for the use of ‘pervasive data’ in research. Such guidelines, if warranted, would detail how researchers can work with pervasive data while meeting ethical expectations of research and protecting individuals’ privacy and other rights.” Below are some of the main points from CCC & CRA-I’s response.

(1) Benefits to the proposed guidelines:

  • Accountability and a standard of research to support researchers and enhance public trust.
  • A consistent approach to research ethics across different institutions, including but not limited to, universities, technology companies, and industries (e.g. healthcare, education, transportation).
  • Methods justification and improvement for researchers who work with sensitive, pervasive data.
  • Protection for researchers who study controversial topics by providing ethical foundations for their work.
  • Protection for the participants whose data is being analyzed and strengthen the protections under Common Rule (many IRBs deem some pervasive data studies as “non-human subject research,” which does not ensure the same level of ethical review as research deemed human subjects research).
  • Clarity for companies who could use the guidelines to standardize their research processes, codify best practices, make their work more equitable (by ensuring all stakeholders are considered), and likely improve the efficacy of their research as well.

(2) Drawbacks to the proposed guidelines:

  • The guidelines would need to stay robust to shifts in data practices, governance, other adjacent recognized guidelines (e.g. IRB), etc. They recommend a regular review of the guidelines to ensure alignment with current policies and needs.
  • There is no enforcement mechanism to ensure good faith adoption among researchers. The communities and people that should be protected and treated ethically may still face significant risks.
  • Researchers using pervasive data may not be aware of the guidelines. Awareness could be increased through integration with IRB CITI or NSF RCR training and by obtaining buy-in from organizations that publish research (e.g., ACM, IEEE, National Academies) or fund research (e.g., NSF, NIH, The Knight Foundation).
  • Researchers may be aware of guidelines but misuse them to justify unethical data practices (they might also design research studies to fall outside the boundaries of such guidelines–similar to researchers trying to avoid IRB review).
  • Guidelines may restrict flexibility and innovation of ethical research that falls outside the existing guidelines.
  • Data and researchers can both be outside of the U.S., and national guidelines need to consider international contexts. 

(3) The NTIA definition of pervasive data could be improved by,

  • using “digital services” or “networked services” rather than “online” since “online” can be interpreted as “on the internet”, which is too narrow in scope, and
  • including the following data: in the definition: health data, biometric data, sensor data (e.g., tracking body movements, sensed behavior of humans), non-publicly available data, personally identifiable information (PII), data of marginalized or at-risk communities (i.e., people at risk for poor health and social well being), and inferred data (i.e., algorithmic inferences of one’s identity, activities, emotion or affect, likeness, etc.).

(4) Existing barriers to accessing pervasive data:

  • Pervasive data collected and stored in technology companies is generally inaccessible to researchers outside of those companies. The predominant challenge is the misalignment between companies’ priorities (profit, legal liability) and researchers’ priorities (creating new knowledge). 
  • Costs for data access can be prohibitively expensive (which disproportionately impacts resource-constrained researchers).

Even once data is obtained, the authors expressed that there are hardships to actually use the data to conduct research (e.g. assessing the quality of data, determining who can provide consent/permission to use the data, etc.). They concluded that if researchers are to have access to pervasive data, we would need a large-scale shift in thinking about how that data is made available, what protections are available to companies, what standards researchers should be held to, and how to evaluate the quality of the data. 

(5) Data held by online services that would be most valuable to the public interest if researchers were able to access it is data that:

  • Aligns with societal priorities (e.g., democracy, healthcare, housing, children, poverty). This could allow researchers and companies to develop technologies and policies towards the greater good – e.g., helping those most in need. 
  • Helps us understand how technology is shaping our social lives (e.g., social media). This is important for understanding and tackling societal challenges, like disinformation, harassment, and mental health. 
  • Is collected, analyzed, and used (by various actors) about people, without their informed consent or even awareness. This is important for protecting people’s privacy and enabling them to make informed decisions about their digital behaviors, identities, and likeness.  

(6) Guidance for researchers working with pervasive data considering consent and autonomy. Researchers should clarify if a user allowing access to their data is,

  • Legally required (e.g. age before purchasing alcohol to be delivered) or is motivated by the company’s desire for data,
  • Required in order to use the service/obtain the information the user is attempting to access, and 
  • Going to potentially be sold/accessed to a data broker and/or researchers and/or other actors (e.g., government, law enforcement).

They also presented the principle of “do no harm” as an alternative model to traditional consent that can provide protection for data subjects in cases where autonomy is limited or consent is given in circumstances where it is required for the individual to have access to required or desired resources. 

(7) In order to take future technological advances into account, the guidelines should do the following:

  • Be reviewed every 6 -12 months (could consider establishing a working group that is responsible for this process) because as technology evolves, so should these guidelines. 
  • Rely on the principle of precedence – learn from past decisions to inform future ones (which may be different technology but similar ethical considerations).
  • Require researchers to certify a “do no harm” statement that acknowledges that the capabilities of technology will evolve, but they should never use the data in a way that could negatively impact or be used against the person who supplied it (even if they consented for it to be used for future research needs). It could include a section on what a researcher can and cannot do with pervasive data, and shift the responsibility for unforeseen negative consequences onto the researcher rather than the data subject.
  • Account for the perspectives and expectations of data subjects, with attention to the unique contexts and identities implicated in data collection, analysis, etc. (e.g. if the degree of perceived sensitivity of data type A is high for group B, then perhaps said data should not be collected from group B to begin with).
  • Update the understanding of what situations require what kind of privacy protection, accounting for what data types are sensitive to data subjects (e.g. data about affect/emotions that is increasingly relevant in pervasive data collection/inferences/use, and are considered to be “sensitive” by data subjects (Andalibi & Buss, 2020).
  • Consider how federal, state, and international data privacy regulations align and conflict and communicate these limitations to researchers so they can consider how to apply them to their respective projects.

Read the full CCC & CRA-I RFC Response here.