Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

This is an Intervention: Foregrounding and Operationalizing Ethics During Technology Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT)

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 11))

Abstract

Pervasive information and communication technologies (PICT) can raise many ethical issues during their design. Ethical concerns, however, are often supplanted by competing design values including efficiency, cost, and elegance. Increasingly, advocates and researchers are experimenting with ethics-oriented interventions in the form of action research that inserts social scientists or humanists into the design process to promote human values. This chapter describes and evaluates an intervention to promote privacy and resist surveillance in a ubiquitous computing laboratory. Ethnographic data from 2 years of participant observation suggest that laboratory interventions can serve as a values lever—a design practice that pries open conversations about ethics and helps the team come to consensus about ethics as design principles. The chapter suggests criteria by which researchers can evaluate the success of an ethics intervention and describes ways in which such interventions can increase designers’ ability to foreground, react to, and incorporate ethics into design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This work was an example of anticipatory ethics (Johnson 2010, 2011) in action. See also Chap. 11, in this volume.

References

  • Bannon, L. 2006. Forgetting as a feature, not a bug: The duality of memory and implications for ubiquitous computing. CoDesign 2(1): 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, J.-F., and D.G. Johnson. 2002. Data retention and the panoptic society: The social benefits of forgetfulness. The Information Society 18(1): 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., and R. Larson. 1987. Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 175(9): 526–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. 2007. Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2): 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., and R. Mahajan. 2010. Embedding the humanities in engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory. In Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration, ed. M.E. Gorman, 209–230. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. (ed.). 1997. Human values and the design of computer technology, CSLI lecture notes. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., P.H. Kahn, and A. Borning. 2006. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Applications, vol. 6, ed. D. Galletta and P. Zhang. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., and H. Rosenbaum. 2008. Revising the conceptualization of computerization movements. The Information Society 24(4): 229–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. 2001. Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies. Science and Engineering Ethics 7(3): 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J., N. Ramanathan, H. Falaki, B. Longstaff, K. Parameswaran, M. Monibi, D.H. Kim, et al. 2011. Ohmage: An open mobility system for activity and experience sampling (CENS Technical Report No. 100). Los Angeles: Center for Embedded Networked Sensing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, R.D., and N.H. Steneck. 1990. Science- and engineering-related ethics and values studies: Characteristics of an emerging field of research. Science, Technology & Human Values 15(1): 84–104. doi:10.1177/016224399001500109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.G. 2000. Computer ethics, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.G. 2007. Ethics and technology “in the making”: An essay on the challenge of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(1): 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.G. 2010. The role of ethics in science and engineering. Trends in Biotechnology 28(12): 589–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.G. 2011. Software agents, anticipatory ethics, and accountability. In The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem, ed. Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby, and Joseph R. Herkert, 61–76. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R., and S. Iacono. 1988. The mobilization of support for computerization: The role of computerization movements. Social Problems 35(3): 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knobel, C.P., and G.C. Bowker. 2011. Values in design. Communications of the ACM 54(7): 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 2008. A cautious prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the Design History Society, ed. F. Hackne, J. Glynne, and V. Minto, 2–10. Presented at the 2008 annual international conference of the Design History Society. Falmouth: Universal Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofland, J., D. Snow, L. Anderson, and L.H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Los, M. 2006. Looking into the future: Surveillance, globalization and the totalitarian potential. In Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond, ed. D. Lyon, 69–94. Devon: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. 2002. Everyday surveillance: Personal data and social classifications. Information, Communication & Society 5(2): 242–257. doi:10.1080/13691180210130806.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. 2006. Why where you are matters: Mundane mobilities, transparent technologies, and digital discrimination. In Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life, 209–224. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manders-Huits, N., and M. Zimmer. 2009. Values and pragmatic action: The challenges of introducing ethical intelligence in technical and design communities. International Review of Information Ethics 10: 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G.T. 2002. What’s new about the “new surveillance”? Classifying for change and continuity. Surveillance & Society 1(1): 9–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mun, M., S. Reddy, K. Shilton, N. Yau, P. Boda, J. Burke, D. Estrin, et al. 2009. PEIR, the personal environmental impact report, as a platform for participatory sensing systems research. In Proceedings of the international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services, 55–68. Presented at the international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services. Krakow: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 1989. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2008. Ars Synthetica: Designs for human practice. Houston: Rice University Connexions. Web site. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/col10612/1.2/

  • Reddy, S., K. Shilton, J. Burke, D. Estrin, M. Hansen, and M.B Srivastava. 2008. Evaluating participation and performance in participatory sensing. In UrbanSense workshop, SenSys 2008. Presented at the Sensys, Raleigh: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, D., and A. Namioka. 1993. Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilton, K. 2010. Participatory sensing: Building empowering surveillance. Surveillance & Society 8(2): 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilton, K. 2012. Values levers: Building ethics into design. Science, Technology & Human Values.. doi:10.1177/0162243912436985.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shilton, K., J. Burke, D. Estrin, M. Hansen, and M. Srivastava. 2008. Participatory privacy in urban sensing. Presented at the MODUS 2008, St. Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilton, K., J. Burke, D. Estrin, M. Hansen, R. Govindan, and J. Kang. 2009. Designing the personal data stream: Enabling participatory privacy in mobile personal sensing. In The 37th research conference on communication, information and internet policy (TPRC). Presented at the 37th research conference on communication, information and internet policy (TPRC), Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S.L. 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43(3): 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. 1995. Making work visible. Communications of the ACM 38(9): 56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. 2007. Human-machine reconfigurations, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Burg, S. 2009. Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Science and Engineering Ethics 15(1): 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is based on material from my doctoral dissertation, “Building Values into the Design of Pervasive Mobile Technologies.” Many thanks to my committee: Jeffrey Burke, Deborah Estrin, Christopher Kelty, Ramesh Srinivasan, and chair Christine Borgman. Their ideas, feedback and guidance have shaped this work immensely. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation under grant number 0832873.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, Hornbake South Wing Room 4105, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Katie Shilton Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Katie Shilton Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Shilton Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Poynter Center, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

    Kenneth D. Pimple

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shilton, K. (2014). This is an Intervention: Foregrounding and Operationalizing Ethics During Technology Design. In: Pimple, K. (eds) Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT). Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6833-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6833-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6832-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6833-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation