The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery
Abstract
The Value Sensitive Design (VSD) methodology provides a comprehensive framework for advancing a value-centered research and design agenda. Although VSD provides helpful ways of thinking about and designing value-centered computational systems, we argue that the specific mechanics of VSD create thorny tensions with respect to value sensitivity. In particular, we examine limitations due to value classifications, inadequate guidance on empirical tools for design, and the ways in which the design process is ordered. In this paper, we propose ways of maturing the VSD methodology to overcome these limitations and present three empirical case studies that illustrate a family of methods to effectively engage local expressions of values. The findings from our case studies provide evidence of how we can mature the VSD methodology to mitigate the pitfalls of classification and engender a commitment to reflect on and respond to local contexts of 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
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/230538.230561 · Cited by 1,203 · cited 1×
“During the past decade, the HCI community has become increasingly interested in accounting for human values in the design of computer systems [3, 16, 18, 19, 23, 40].”
BackgroundFriedman, B. (1996) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/242485.242493 · Cited by 966 · cited 2×
“Third, by focusing on values of ethical import, VSD’s progression fromconceptualtoempiricaltotechnicalinvestigations privileges known values over value discovery [ 14 , 15].”
BackgroundMethodWright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2008) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357156 · Cited by 473
Cited by
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988
Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of “Bias” in NLP
Blodgett, S. L., Barocas, S., Daumé III, H., & Wallach, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485 · Cited by 1,050
Next steps for value sensitive design
Borning, A., & Muller, M. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208560 · Cited by 365
From Research Prototype to Research Product
Odom, W., Wakkary, R., Lim, Y.-K., Desjardins, A., Hengeveld, B., & Banks, R. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858447 · Cited by 259
Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles
Umbrello, S., & van de Poel, I. (2021) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3 · Cited by 251
Metadata
- Authors
- Le Dantec, C. A., Poole, E. S., & Wyche, S. P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2009-04-04
- Pages
- 1141-1150
- OpenAlex
- W2098652735
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.95
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
