Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 701–715 | Cite as

Integrating ethics in design through the value-sensitive design approach

Article

Abstract

The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) has declared that to achieve accredited status, “engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.” Many engineering professors struggle to integrate this required ethics instruction in technical classes and projects because of the lack of a formalized ethics-in-design approach. However, one methodology developed in human-computer interaction research, the Value-Sensitive Design approach, can serve as an engineering education tool which bridges the gap between design and ethics for many engineering disciplines. The three major components of Value-Sensitive Design, conceptual, technical, and empirical, exemplified through a case study which focuses on the development of a command and control supervisory interface for a military cruise missile.

Keywords

ethical responsibility engineering Value-Sensitive Design (VSD) human-computer interaction research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ABET. (2003) “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs (2003–2004)”, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cummings, M.L. and Lo, J. (2004) Globalizing Engineering Ethics Education Through Web-Based Instruction, ISTAS 2004, Worcester, MA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedman, B. (1999) “Value-sensitive design: A research agenda for information technology”, Contract No.: SBR-9729633, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman, B. and Kahn, P.H. (1997) Human Agency and Responsible Computing: Implications for Computer System Design. Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, B. Friedman Eds., CSLI Publications Stanford, CA, 221–235.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friedman, B. and Kahn, P.H. (2003) Human values, ethics, and design. Handbook on Human-Computer Interaction, J. Jacko and A. Sears Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ, 1177–1201.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., and Borning, A. (2002) “Value sensitive design: Theory and methods”. Technical Report 02-12-01, University of Washington, Computer Science and Engineering.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman, B. and Nissenbaum, H. (1996) Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 14: 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Royce, W.W. (1970) Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. WESCON Technical Papers: 14, A1-1-A1-9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boehm, B. (1988) A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. Computer: 61–72.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Society of Professional Engineers. (2002) NSPE Code of Ethics.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott, J. B. (1918) “The Hague conventions and declaration of 1899 and 1907, accompanied by tables of signatures, ratifications and adhesions of the various powers and texts of reservations.” The Hague, Netherlands (1st: 1899).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume I (1945).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Brien, W.V. (1981) The conduct of just and limited war, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holmes, R.L. (1989) On War and Morality. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dougherty, J.E. and Pfaltzgraff, R.L. (1996) Contending theories of international relations: a comprehensive survey. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Unger, S. (1994) Controlling Technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Billings, C.E. (1997) Aviation Automation: The Search For A Human-Centered Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parasuraman, R. (2000) Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models. Ergonomics: 43, 931–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B. and Wickens, C.D. (2000) A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 30: 286–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parasuraman, R. and Riley, V. (1997) Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors 39: 230–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Endsley, M.R. and Kaber, D.B. (1999) Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42: 462–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sheridan, T.B. and Verplank, W. (1978) “Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators”. Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Layton, C., Smith, P.J. and McCoy, E. (1994) Design of a cooperative problem-solving system for en-route flight planning: An empirical evaluation. Human Factors 36: 94–119.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mosier, K.L. and Skitka, L.J. (1996) Human Decision Makers and Automated Decision Aids: Made for Each Other? Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah, New Jersey, 201–220.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skitka, L.J., Mosier, K.L. and Burdick, M.D. (1999) Does automation bias decision-making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51: 991–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walker, M., Takayama, L. and Landay, J. (2002) High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. Humans Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarter, N.B. and Schroeder, B. (2001) Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors 43: 573–583.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dixon, S. R. and Wickens, C. D. (2003) “Imperfect Automation in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Flight Control”, AFHD-03-17/MAAD-03-2, Institute of Aviation, Savoy, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 33-305Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations