Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling for Design for Values

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design

  • 5386 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses societal implications of models and modeling in engineering design. The more standard question about well-known technical and epistemic modeling values, such as safety and validity, will be left to the standard literature. The sections “Introduction” and “Values in Modeling: Framing and Standard Views” discuss relevant societal norms and values and the ways in which they are model related. Additionally, standard points of view are discussed about the value-ladenness of models. The section “Value-Related Issues Emerging in Model Building and Use” shows various ways in which engineering models may turn out to have unforeseen societal consequences. An important way to avoid such consequences and deliberately model for values in a positive sense is to take models as special kinds of artifacts. This perspective enables modelers to apply designer methods and techniques and view a modeling problem as in need of an explicit list of design specifications. Doing so, modelers may apply forms of stakeholder analysis and participatory design. Additionally, they may apply well-known, hierarchical means-end techniques to explicate and operationalize the relevant values; doing so, they support discussions about them within and outside the design team. Finally, the model-as-artifact perspective stimulates modelers to produce technical documentation and user guides, which will decrease the negative effects of improper use. The chapter ends with a checklist of issues, which the documentation should cover if a modeling for values is taken seriously.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 699.99
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.

    Note that according to my characterization, a mathematical model “is not merely a set of (uninterpreted) mathematical equations, theorems and definitions” (Gelfert 2009, p. 502). They include their interpretation rules that define the relation between the equations and some features of the target system. “Mathematical model” is therefore a thick concept.

  2. 2.

    In this chapter, I will adopt Frankena’s (1973) definition of intrinsic and instrumental values. The first are “things that are good in themselves or good because of their own intrinsic properties,” and the last are “things that are good because they are means to what is good” (p. 54).

  3. 3.

    See, e.g., Zeigler et al. (2000); Sargent (2005); Barlas (1996); Rykiel (1996), etc.

  4. 4.

    The example is from Shelley (2011) who discusses several examples of technological design with conflicting interests.

  5. 5.

    Such as Haimes (2005)

  6. 6.

    As models are special kinds of artifacts, many chapters in the present handbook discuss the engineering, societal, and environmental values mentioned in this section and more. They provide important starting points for the standard literature I have been referring to.

  7. 7.

    See, for instance, Pahl and Beitz (1984); Pugh (1990), Jones (1992); Roozenburg and Eekels (1995); Cross (2008).

  8. 8.

    Relevant literature originates in investigations into ethics in operations research and in values in computational models.

  9. 9.

    For more on the difference between embedded and implied values in models, see Zwart et al. (2013).

  10. 10.

    The examples in this section come from participatory research reported more in detail in Zwart et al. (2013).

  11. 11.

    The 1991 Sleipner case shows that inattentive downscaling also can cause catastrophes. See Selby et al. (1997) for the details of how a concrete offshore platform collapsed due to incorrect downscaling of an FEM model.

  12. 12.

    After the Gulf War, discussions arose about the efficacy of the Patriot defense system (cf. Siegel 2004), and the software failure was criticized for being just a scapegoat for the army to cover up the malperformance of the Patriot system. This discussion however does not subvert the example. Even if the critics are right, we may consider the Patriot software failure to be an instructive imaginary case. See for a more detailed account Diekmann and Zwart (2013).

  13. 13.

    See also the ABET (1988) definition of design, which states “Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation,” or the ISO (2006) section 5.

  14. 14.

    For recent developments in participatory design, see the special issue of Design Issues on the subject, volume 28, Number 3, Summer 2012, or the proceedings of the biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC), which has had its 12th meeting in 2012.

  15. 15.

    Woodhouse and Patton (2004, p. 7) ask a similar question within the STS context of design: “Who shall participate in making decisions about new design initiatives (and in revising existing activities)?”

  16. 16.

    Finding out how to identify the relevant stakeholders and their views, modelers could also explore the way system and software engineers carry out requirement analysis, which covers among other things stakeholder identification and joint requirement development sessions.

  17. 17.

    These are two ends that also inspired the cautious admitters’ position of Le Menestrel and Van Wassenhove discussed in the section “Current Ideas About the Value-Ladenness of Models.”

References

  • ABET, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc (1988) Annual report for the year ending September 30, 1998, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams D (2009) Mostly harmless. Pan Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlas Y (1996) Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 12(3):183–210. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199623)12:3<183::AID-SDR103>3.0.CO;2-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner F, Baun TM (2005) Engineering documentation. In: Whitaker JC (ed) The electronics handbook, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker WE (1995) Democratisering van de technologische cultuur. Schrijen-Lippertz, Voerendaal

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair M, Obenski S, Bridickas P (1992) GAO/IMTEC-92-26 Patriot missile software problem. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm

  • Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli L, Kroes P (2014) Values in engineering. In: Soler L, Zwart S, Lynch M, Israel-Jost V (eds) Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science. Routledge, NewYork/Londen, pp 188–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 8(2):5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranor CF (1990) Some moral issues in risk assessment. Ethics 101(1):123–143. doi:10.2307/2381895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2008) Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. Wiley, Chichester/Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann S, Zwart SD (2013) Modeling for fairness: a rawlsian approach. Stud Hist Philos Sci A 46:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2000) Inductive risk and values in science. Philos Sci 67(4):559–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas H (2007) Rejecting the ideal of value free science. In: Kincaid H et al (ed) Value-free science?, vol 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 120–141

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Downey GL (1998) The machine in me. An anthropologist sits among computer engineers. Routledge, New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg A et al (2006) “Replies to critics”, democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology. In: Veak TJ (ed) Democratizing technology: building on Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 175–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann KR, Wallace WA (2005) A covenant with transparency: opening the black box of models. Commun ACM 48(5):93–97. doi:10.1145/1060710.1060715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann KR, Wallace WA (2009) Ensuring transparency in computational modeling. Commun ACM 52(3):131–134. doi:10.1145/1467247.1467278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankena WK (1973) Ethics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Frigg R, Hartmann S (2012) Models in science. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2012 edition). The Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford, CA 94305-4115 Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/

  • Gelfert A (2009) Rigorous results, cross-model justification, and the transfer of empirical warrant: the case of many-body models in physics. Synthese 169(3):497–519. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9431-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraci A (1991) IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. (Contributions by F. Katki, L. McMonegal, B. Meyer, J. Lane, P. Wilson, J. Radatz, … F. Springsteel). Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes YY (2005) Risk modeling, assessment, and management, vol 40. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubka V, Eder WE (1988) Theory of technical systems; a total concept theory for engineering design. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) ISO 11442:2006(E) Technical product documentation – document management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins DG, McCauley LA (2006) GIS, SINKS, FILL, and disappearing wetlands: unintended consequences in algorithm development and use. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on applied computing. ACM, New York, pp 277–282. doi:10.1145/1141277.1141342

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JC (1992) Design methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijowski DJ, Dankowicz H, & Loui MC (2013) Observations on the Responsible Development and Use of Computational Models and Simulations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1):63–81. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9291-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaasen I (2005) Modelling reality. In: Jong TMD, Voordt VD (eds) Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design. IOS Press/Delft University Press, Delft, pp 181–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen JPC (2001) Ethical issues in modeling: some reflections. Eur J Oper Res 130(1):223–230. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00024-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Menestrel M, Van Wassenhove LN (2004) Ethics outside, within, or beyond OR models? Eur J Oper Res 153(2):477–484. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00168-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannan S (2005) Lee’s loss prevention in the process industries: hazard identification, assessment, and control. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • McNelis PD (1994) Rhetoric and rigor in macroeconomic models. In: Wallace WA (ed) Ethics in modeling. Pergamon, Oxford/Tarrytown, pp 75–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. Am Sociol Rev 1(6):894–904. doi:10.2307/2084615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MS, Morrison M (1999) Models as mediators: perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W (1984) Engineering design; a systematic approach. Design Council, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh S (1990) Total design; integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison Wesley, Wokingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J (1995) Product design: fundamentals and methods. Wiley, Chichester/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rykiel EJ (1996) Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation. Ecol Model 90(3):229–244. doi:10.1016/0304-3800(95)00152-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent RG (2005) Verification and validation of simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 37th conference on winter simulation, Orlando pp 130–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler D, Namioka A (1993) Participatory design: principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby RG, Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1997) The failure of an offshore platform. Concrete Int 19(8):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley C (2011) Fairness in technological design. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):663–680. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9259-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shruti K, Loui M (2008) Ethical issues in computational modeling and simulation. Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Adam B (2004) “Honest Performance Analysis: a not-always met requirement”. Defense Acquisition Review Journal. Defense Acquisition University Press. January–April, p.101–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1973) The structure of ill structured problems. Artif Intell 4(3–4):181–201. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Poel IR (2009) Values in engineering design. In: Meijers AA (ed) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, vol 9. Elsevier/North Holland, Amsterdam/London/Boston, pp 973–1006

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel I (2011) The relation between forward-looking and backward-looking responsibility. In: Vincent NA, van de Poel I, Hoven J (eds) Moral responsibility. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 37–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van de Poel IR (2013) Translating values into design requirements. In: Michelfelder DP, McCarthy N, Goldberg DE (eds) Philosophy and engineering: reflections on practice, principles and process. Springer, Dordrecht/Netherlands, pp 253–266

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van de Poel IR, Royakkers L (2011) Ethics, technology, and engineering: an introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinck D (ed) (2003) Everyday engineering. Ethnography of design and innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker WE (1994) Responsible policy making. In: Wallace WA (ed) Ethics in modeling. Pergamon, Oxford/Tarrytown, pp 226–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker WE (2009) Does the best practice of rational-style model-based policy analysis already include ethical considerations? Omega 37(6):1051–1062. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2008.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker JC, Mancini RK (2012) Technical documentation and process. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse E, Patton JW (2004) Design by society: science and technology studies and the social shaping of design1. Des Issues 20(3):1–12. doi:10.1162/0747936041423262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler BP, Praehofer H, Kim TG (2000) Theory of modeling and simulation, 2nd edn. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart SD, Jacobs J, van de Poel I (2013) Values in engineering models: social ramifications of modeling in engineering design. Eng Stud 5(2):93–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This chapter draws on and elaborates Zwart et al. (2013) and Diekmann Zwart (2013). Moreover, it presents part of Van de Poel (2013) as starting point for the operationalization of societal values in engineering design. Finally, the author wants to thank Sven Diekmann and the editors of the present volume for their comments on the outline and contents of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Sjoerd D. Zwart

Authors
  1. Sjoerd D. Zwart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sjoerd D. Zwart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

  2. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

  3. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ibo van de Poel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Zwart, S.D. (2015). Modeling for Design for Values. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6969-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6970-0

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation