The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design
Open accessAbstract
The prospective robots in healthcare intended to be included within the conclave of the nurse-patient relationship--what I refer to as care robots--require rigorous ethical reflection to ensure their design and introduction do not impede the promotion of values and the dignity of patients at such a vulnerable and sensitive time in their lives. The ethical evaluation of care robots requires insight into the values at stake in the healthcare tradition. What's more, given the stage of their development and lack of standards provided by the International Organization for Standardization to guide their development, ethics ought to be included into the design process of such robots. The manner in which this may be accomplished, as presented here, uses the blueprint of the Value-sensitive design approach as a means for creating a framework tailored to care contexts. Using care values as the foundational values to be integrated into a technology and using the elements in care, from the care ethics perspective, as the normative criteria, the resulting approach may be referred to as care centered value-sensitive design. The framework proposed here allows for the ethical evaluation of care robots both retrospectively and prospectively. By evaluating care robots in this way, we may ultimately ask what kind of care we, as a society, want to provide in the future.
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
The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics
(2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511845239 · Cited by 210
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Asaro, P. (2006). What should we want from a robot ethic? In R. Capurro & M. Nagenborg (Eds.), Ethics and robotics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
- Barras, C. (2009). Useful, loveable and unbelievably annoying. The New Scientist, 22–23. · DOI
- Cummings, M. (2006). Integrating ethics through value sensitive design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 701–715. · DOI
- Engelberger, J. (1989). Robotics in service. London: MIT Press. · DOI
- Freidman, B., Kahn, P., et al. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human–computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). NY: M. E. Sharpe.
- Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (2003). Human values, ethics, and design. In The human–computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (pp. 1177–1201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Gadow, S. A. (1985). Nurse and patient: The caring relationship. In A. H. Bishop & J. R. Scudder Jr. (Eds.), Caring, curing, coping: Nurse, physician, patient relationships (pp. 31–43). University Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Hayashi, T., Kawamoto, H., & Sankai, Y. (2005). Control method of robot suit HAL working as operator’s muscle using biological and dynamical information. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3063–3068. · DOI · Paper page
- Howcroft, D., Mitev, N., & Wilson, M. (2004). What we may learn from the social shaping of technology approach. In J. Mingers & L. P. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 329–371). Chichester: Wiley.
- Jecker, N. S., Carrese, J. A., & Pearlman, R. A. (2002). Separating care and cure: An analysis of historical and contemporary images of nursing and medicine. In E. Boetzkes & W. J. Waluchow (Eds.), Readings in healthcare ethics (pp. 57–68). Canada: Broadview Press.
- Kawamoto, H., & Sankai, Y. (2002). Power assist system HAL-3 for gait disorder person. Computers Helping People with Special Needs; Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2398, 19–29. · DOI
- Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Le Dantec, C., Poole, E., & Wyche, S. (2009). Values as lived experience; evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. In Proceedings of the 27th International conference on human factors in computing systems. ISBN: 978-1-60558-246-7.
- Li, J., Wolf, L., & Evanoff, B. (2004). Use of mechanical patient lifts decreased musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries among health care workers. Injury Prevention, 10(4), 212–216. · DOI
- Little, M. (1998). Care: From theory to orientation and back. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 23(2), 190–209. · DOI
- Mander-Huits, N. (2011). What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values in design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 271–287. · DOI · Paper page
- Metzler, T., & Lewis, L. (2008). Ethical view, religious views, and acceptance of robotic applications: A pilot study. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. http://www.aaai.org .
- Nathan, L., Friedman, B., Klasnja, P., Kane, S., & Miller, J. (2008). Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society throughout interactive system design. In Proceedings of DIS (pp. 1–10). · DOI
- Nissenbaum, H. (1998). Values in the design of computer systems. Computers and Society, 38–39. · DOI
- Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkely: University of California Press.
- Onishi, M., ZhiWei, L., Odashima, T., Hirano, S., Tahara, K., Mukai, T. (2007). Generation of human care behaviours by human-interactive robot RI-MAN. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 3128–3129.
- Reich, W. T. (1995). History of the notion of care. In W. T. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, vol. 5 (pp. 319–331), Revised edition. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
- Rosati, C. (2009). Relational good and the multiplicity problem. Philosophical Issues, 19(1), 205–234. · DOI
- Ruddick, S. (1995). Maternal thinking. New York: Ballantine Books.
- Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2010). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 . · DOI · Paper page
- Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford english dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind and Machine, 16, 141–161. · DOI
- Super, D. E. (1973). The work values inventory. In D. G. Zytowski (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to interest measurement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.
- Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality, and purpose. Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(2), 158–171. · DOI · Paper page
- Vallor, S. (2011). Carebots and caregivers: Sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the 21st century. Journal of Philosophy and Technology, 24, 251–268. · DOI
- Van den Hoven, J. (2007). ICT and value sensitive design. International Federation for Information Processing, 233, 67–72. · DOI
- Van Wynsberghe, A., & Gastmans, C. (2008). Telesurgery: An ethical appraisal. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, e22. · DOI
- Vanlaere, L., & Gastmans, C. (2011). A personalist approach to care ethics. Nursing Ethics, 18(2), 161–173. · DOI
- Verbeek, P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. · DOI · Paper page
- Verbeek, P. (2008). Morality in design; design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In P. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light, & S. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (pp. 91–102). Berlin: Springer. · DOI
- Veruggio, G., & Operto, F. (2006). Roboethics: A bottom-up interdisciplinary discourse in the field of applied ethics in robotics. In International Review of Information Ethics. Ed. Ethics in Robotics, pp. 2–8. · DOI
- Wilson, M. (2002). Making nursing visible? Gender, technology and the care plan as script. Information Technology and People, 15(2), 139–158. · DOI
Cited by
Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment
Gabriel, I. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 · Cited by 896
People are averse to machines making moral decisions.
Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003 · Cited by 738
Towards transparency by design for artificial intelligence
Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00276-4 · Cited by 588
Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature.
Murphy, K., Di Ruggiero, E., Upshur, R., Willison, D. J., Malhotra, N., Cai, J. C., Malhotra, N., Lui, V., & Gibson, J. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00577-8 · Cited by 435
Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation
Stahl, B. C., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2016) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018 · Cited by 235
Metadata
- Authors
- van Wynsberghe, A.
- Venue
- Science and Engineering Ethics
- Published
- 2012-01-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 407-433
- ISSN
- 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-5546
- OpenAlex
- W2106373505
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.69
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6
- The paper
- van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6
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.