A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · see citing works
The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review
Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Joshi, I., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172 · Cited by 1,105 · see citing works
Schiff, D. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support
Madaio, M., Egede, L., Subramonyam, H., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Wallach, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512899 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Considerations for AI fairness for people with disabilities
Trewin, S., Basson, S., Muller, M., Branham, S., Treviranus, J., Gruen, D., Hebert, D., Lyckowski, N., & Manser, E. (2019) · AI Matters · doi:10.1145/3362077.3362086 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
AI Ethics – Too Principled to Fail?
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3391293 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
The Debate on the Ethics of AI in Health Care: a Reconstruction and Critical Review
Morley, J., Machado, C., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3486518 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Farsight: Fostering Responsible AI Awareness During AI Application Prototyping
Wang, Z. J., Kulkarni, C., Wilcox, L., Terry, M., & Madaio, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642335 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Making Sense of Art: Access for Gallery Visitors with Vision Impairments
Holloway, L., Marriott, K., Butler, M., & Borning, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300250 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationKo, E. G., & Hughes, J. E. (2026) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100560 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- 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