Advertisement

Ethics and Design: Rethinking Professional Ethics as Part of the Design Domain

  • Stephanie MooreEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

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.

Keywords

Ethics Professional standards Code of conduct Social responsibility Design ethics Design domain Instructional design 

References

  1. Banathy, B. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, I. (1993). Ethics in an age of technology: The Gifford Lectures (Vol. 2). San Francisco: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, B. (2005). Technology in world history (Vol. 1–7). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom, 1980–2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Healy, J. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  11. Healy, J. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children’s minds—and what we can do about it. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. 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).Google Scholar
  13. Kaufman, R. (2000). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolbe, K. (1990). The conative connection: Acting on instinct. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. McDonough, W. (2006). Cradle to cradle design. iTunesU—Stanford series. December 3, 2006. Retrieved January 15, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Nye, D. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, R. (2006). The health ethics typology: Six domains to improve care. Hampton, GA: Socratic Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  29. Scharff, R., & Dusek, V. (Eds.). (2003). Philosophy of technology: The technological condition, an anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simon, H. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Strijbos, S. (1998). Ethics and the systemic character of modern technology. Techne: Journal for the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 3(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  33. Whitbeck, C. (1996). Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations