Abstract
Ethics have traditionally, although not solely, been discussed in terms of professional standards and codes of conducts. While these codes and standards remain essential, the purpose of this piece is to attempt an expansion of the way ethics are conceived by drawing out the relationship between ethics and design. Analyses of technology that emphasize its relationships to other parts of social systems demonstrate how a systems view can enhance our own conception of ethics as well as design, especially when these two ideas intersect in the space of social responsibility of a profession. In this piece, a review of some key pieces and concepts from outside the field of instructional design are used to highlight how other technology and design-oriented fields are exploring these ideas, and examples in educational technology are used to illustrate how these ideas are consistent with analysis of technology in the specific context of educational systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is akin to viewing engineering design as the central function engineers engage in, or architectural design for architects, etc. This is not intended to be dismissive of the role of research, but it is an argument that design is the convergence point for all the actors and activities in the field of instructional design/educational technology in much the same manner as it is in other design- and technology-oriented fields.
- 2.
One response to accessibility would be that laws would require this, such as Section 508, but accessibility is raised here because of the topics that do arise in the small body of literature on ethics in the field, accessibility is one of the most common themes. For more discussion on a distinction between a legal treatments and design treatments of topics related to ethics, see Moore and Ellsworth (2013).
- 3.
For additional treatment, Carlson (2005) does discuss at length the relationship between technology and all forms of sociopolitical systems and provides and descriptive model for these relationships.
- 4.
There appears to be far less patience with the temporal aspects of technological reshaping in educational contexts, at least on the part of policy makers and innovators. One might argue that much of what looks like “resistance” in schools is actually the range of relevant social groups acting upon the technologies to reshape them, which appears to “slow down” the adoption process and is more accurately described as a redesign process rather than resistance/adoption. This has also likely led to less participatory design models in educational technology because the core relevant social groups are viewed as “resisters” rather than codesigners. Further exploration, which I hope to encourage in others through this chapter, of the implications of SCOT for educational technology could yield some more effective models and relationships for the educational-technical system.
References
Banathy, B. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press.
Barbour, I. (1993). Ethics in an age of technology: The Gifford Lectures (Vol. 2). San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Beabout, B. R. (2013). Community leadership: Seeking social justice while recreating public schools in post-Katrina New Orleans. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of social (in) justice and educational leadership. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Carlson, B. (2005). Technology in world history (Vol. 1–7). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York: Berg.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom, 1980–2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.
Feldon, D. F., & Gilmore, J. (2006). Patterns in children’s online behavior and scientific problem-solving: A large-N microgenetic study. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances in studying and designing (computer-based) powerful learning environments (pp. 117–125). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Healy, J. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Healy, J. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds—and what we can do about it. New York: Simon & Schuster.
INEE Working Group on Education and Fragility. (2011). Understanding education’s role in fragility: Synthesis of four situational analyses of education and fragility: Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Liberia. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
Kaufman, R. (2000). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.
Kolbe, K. (1990). The conative connection: Acting on instinct. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
McDonough, W. (2006). Cradle to cradle design. iTunesU—Stanford series. December 3, 2006. Retrieved January 15, 2008.
Moore, S. L. (2005). The social impact of a profession: An analysis of factors influencing ethics and the teaching of social responsibility in educational technology programs. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.
Moore, S. L. (2009). Social responsibility of a profession: An analysis of faculty perception of social responsibility factors and integration into graduate programs of educational technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 79–96.
Moore, S. L., & Ellsworth, J. (2013). Ethics and standards in educational technology. In M. Spector (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Bloomington, IN: Association of Educational Communications and Technology.
Nye, D. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or, how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399–441.
Plato. (1990). Phaedrus; Or the ethical, or beautiful. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (pp. 113–143). Boston: Bedford Books.
Porter, R. (2006). The health ethics typology: Six domains to improve care. Hampton, GA: Socratic Publishing.
Quintillian. (1990). Institutes of oratory. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (pp. 297–363). Boston: Bedford Books.
Reeves, T. (2006). How do you know they are learning?: The importance of alignment in higher education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), 294–309.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155–169. In N. Cross (Ed.) (1984). Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). Chichester: Wiley.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Scharff, R., & Dusek, V. (Eds.). (2003). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition, an anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(9), 859–882.
Simon, H. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Strijbos, S. (1998). Ethics and the systemic character of modern technology. Techne: Journal for the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 3(4), 1–15.
Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9–16.
Yeaman, A., Koetting, R., & Nichols, R. (1994). Critical theory, cultural analysis, and the ethics of educational technology as social responsibility. Educational Technology, 34(2), 5–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moore, S. (2014). Ethics and Design: Rethinking Professional Ethics as Part of the Design Domain. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00926-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00927-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)