Cited by 389Innovative Human-Technology InteractionUsability and User Interface DesignDesign Education and Practice

A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods

Friedman, Batya, Hendry, David G., Borning, Alan·2017·Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

Value sensitive design is a theoretically grounded approach to the design of technology that accounts for human values in a principled and systematic manner throughout the design process. In this article we provide a survey of 14 value sensitive design methods: (1) direct and indirect stakeholder analysis; (2) value source analysis; (3) co-evolution of technology and social structure; (4) value scenario; (5) value sketch; (6) value-oriented semi-structured interview; (7) scalable information dimensions; (8) value-oriented coding manual; (9) value-oriented mockup, prototype, or field deployment; (10) ethnographically informed inquiry regarding values and technology; (11) model of informed consent online; (12) value dams and flows; (13) value sensitive action-reflection model; and (14) Envisioning Cards TM. Each of these methods is honed to the investigation of values in technology, serving such purposes as stakeholder identification and legitimation, value representation and elicitation, and values analysis. While presented individually, the methods are intended to be integrated in a robust value sensitive design process. The survey article begins with a brief summary of value sensitive design methodology and theoretical constructs. We next provide an overview of the 14 methods. Then, we turn to a broader discussion of value sensitive design practice, focussing on some methodological strategies and heuristics to support skillful value sensitive design practice. Following the broad discussion of practice, we illustrate one method in action—value scenarios—providing details on its range of purposes and contexts. We conclude with reflections on core characteristics of value sensitive design methodology, and heuristics for innovation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1561/1100000015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work points to the difficulty of embedding ethical values and principles in technology design and the development cycle.

    “Prior work points to the difficulty of embedding ethical values and principles in technology design and the development cycle.”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [58]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2017-11-22
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
63-125
ISSN
  • 1551-3955 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-3963
OpenAlex
W4292081290
Cited by
389
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 16
FWCI
27.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
value-sensitive design, technology and human values, stakeholder analysis, value elicitation, value representation, design heuristics, informed consent, ethnographic inquiry

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