The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design
Open accessAbstract
Recently, there is increased attention to the integration of moral values into the conception, design, and development of emerging IT. The most reviewed approach for this purpose in ethics and technology so far is Value-Sensitive Design (VSD). This article considers VSD as the prime candidate for implementing normative considerations into design. Its methodology is considered from a conceptual, analytical, normative perspective. The focus here is on the suitability of VSD for integrating moral values into the design of technologies in a way that joins in with an analytical perspective on ethics of technology. Despite its promising character, it turns out that VSD falls short in several respects: (1) VSD does not have a clear methodology for identifying stakeholders, (2) the integration of empirical methods with conceptual research within the methodology of VSD is obscure, (3) VSD runs the risk of committing the naturalistic fallacy when using empirical knowledge for implementing values in design, (4) the concept of values, as well as their realization, is left undetermined and (5) VSD lacks a complimentary or explicit ethical theory for dealing with value trade-offs. For the normative evaluation of a technology, I claim that an explicit and justified ethical starting point or principle is required. Moreover, explicit attention should be given to the value aims and assumptions of a particular design. The criteria of adequacy for such an approach or methodology follow from the evaluation of VSD as the prime candidate for implementing moral values in design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001 · Cited by 6,188
Livingstone, S. (2008) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444808089415 · Cited by 1,780
Friedman, B. (1996) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/242485.242493 · Cited by 966 · cited 12×
“Direct and indirect stakeholders are distinguished; the former being those who interact directly with the new technology, the latter being those that are affected in a less straightforward way (Friedman 2004).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics
(2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511845239 · Cited by 210
Manders-Huits, N., & Zimmer, M. (2009) · The International Review of Information Ethics · doi:10.29173/irie87 · Cited by 65
Self-citation
Cited by
Identifying Ethical Considerations for Machine Learning Healthcare Applications
Char, D. S., Abràmoff, M. D., & Feudtner, C. (2020) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2020.1819469 · Cited by 415
Why value sensitive design needs ethical commitments
Jacobs, N., & Huldtgren, A. (2021) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-018-9467-3 · Cited by 88
Robertson, S., Nguyen, T., & Salehi, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445748 · Cited by 67
CHECk: a tool to inform and encourage ethical practice in participatory design with children
Read, J. C., Horton, M., Sim, G., Gregory, P., Fitton, D., & Cassidy, B. (2013) · CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2468356.2468391 · Cited by 63
Insolvent: How to Reorient Computing for Just Sustainability
Becker, C. (2023) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/14668.001.0001 · Cited by 56
Engineers and Active Responsibility
Pesch, U. (2015) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9571-7 · Cited by 38
Nickel, P. J. (2015) · Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_21 · Cited by 33
Batten, J. N., Blythe, J. A., Wieten, S., Cotler, M. P., Kayser, J. B., Porter-Williamson, K., Harman, S., Dzeng, E., & Magnus, D. (2021) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011222 · Cited by 19
Garnham, I., & Smith, R. (2024) · Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings · doi:10.3384/ecp208012 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Manders-Huits, N.
- Venue
- Science and Engineering Ethics
- Published
- 2010-03-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 271-287
- ISSN
- 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-5546
- OpenAlex
- W2170684209
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 54.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.