Case Study: An Assistive Technology Ethics Survey
This chapter describes the online N-Reasons Ethics and Assistive Technology survey designed to address key ethical issues in assistive technologies. The survey was used to foster deliberation and focus discussions in a multidisciplinary workshop on assistive technologies. The survey focused on each of the four workshop topics (evaluation, sensing, networking, and mobility). This chapter thus begins with an overview of the survey design in Sect. 9.1 followed by the process that was used to establish survey content in Sect. 9.2. The results for the survey are presented in Sect. 9.3 followed by brief conclusions in Sect. 9.4.
A survey on the ethics of assistive technologies was commissioned to identify debatable issues that could facilitate discussion about assistive technologies in a multidisciplinary setting. The survey was designed by a multidis ciplinary group of researchers in assistive technology prior to the workshop. All workshop participants completed the survey, as well as members of the general public. The results of the survey provided data about which issues were non-controversial, and which issues were far less clear.
KeywordsSurvey Participant Assistive Technology Group Home Unfair Advantage Wheelchair User
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ahmad R, Bailey J, Bornik Z, Danielson P, Dowlatabadi H, Levy E, Longstaff H (2006) A web-based instrument to model social norms: NERD design and results. Integrated Assessment 6(2):9–36Google Scholar
- 2.Ahmad R, Bailey J, Danielson P (2008) Analysis of an innovative survey platform: comparison of the public’s responses to human health and salmon genomics surveys. Public Understanding of Science Prepublished doi:10.1177/0963662508091806Google Scholar
- 3.Centre for Applied Ethics (2010) Assistive technology survey results. http://www.yourviews.ubc.ca/en/AT_Survey_Results
- 4.Danielson P (2009a) N-Reasons: Computer mediated ethical decision support for public participation. In: Public and Emerging Technologies: Theorizing Participation, Banff, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 5.Danielson P (2009b) Survey on ethics and assistive technologies: N-reasons design and preliminary results. Presentation at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies Workshop, “Removing barriers and enabling individuals: Ethics, design, and use of Assistive Technology”Google Scholar
- 6.Danielson P (2010a) A collaborative platform for experiments in ethics and technology. In: van de Poel I, Goldberg D (eds) Philosophy and Engineering: An Emerging Agenda, Philosphy of Science, vol 2, SpringerGoogle Scholar
- 7.Danielson P (2010b) Designing a machine for learning about the ethics of robotics: The N-Reasons platform. Ethics and Information Technology, Special Issue on Robot Ethics and Human Ethics DOI 10.1007/ s10676-009-9214-xGoogle Scholar
- 8.Danielson P, Ahmad R, Bornik Z, Dowlatabadi H, Levy E (2007) Deep, cheap, and improvable: Dynamic democratic norms and the ethics of biotechnology. In: Ethics and the Life Sciences, Journal of Philosphical Research, Charlottesville, VA, pp 315–326Google Scholar
- 9.Ormandy E, Schuppli C, Weary D (2008) Changing patterns in the use of research animals versus public attitudes: Potential conflict. Poster at the 2008 International GE3LS Symposium, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ripley S (2009) See you in court! Most memorable legal battles in sports. http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Top10/2009/05/24/9553531-sun.html