Reflexivity and value-sensitive design

Value-Sensitive Design (VSD) offers a methodology to make social and moral values central to the design and development of new technologies. Although VSD incorporates views from philosophy and stakeholders involved in the process, it notably lacks reflexivity on the position of those involved in conducting the methodology itself e.g. ethicists, researchers and/or designers. Where technology is considered value-laden, the neutrality of those involved in the methodology seems to be taken for granted. The problem of a lack of reflexivity among VSD practitioners means stakeholder values may have less influence on technological design than is methodologically intended. Understanding VSD as an extension of applied ethical assessment offers a fruitful outlook on how to tackle this problem. As in any sort of ethical assessment, reflexivity and transparency are key to allow all stakeholders to participate, and to ensure outcomes are not decided through power relations alone. This will promote reflexivity and forward a culturally-sensitive approach to VSD that may simplify the process across different cultures. If the designs produced by VSD are seen as products of ethical debates, the lack of reflexivity in VSD undermines the credibility of the designs, understood in terms of how far the designs reflect the values of stakeholders encountered and not merely those of the designers. Without reflexivity the reasons supporting prioritisation and analysis of stakeholder values lose credibility, undermining the designs and technologies produced through VSD. As it stands, it is difficult to defend VSD and its designs as products of a coherent design methodology which identifies clear reasons for preferring certain values over others. To begin to correct this deficiency, the cultural-specificity of dominant ‘value frameworks’ in VSD should be reflexively assessed against the outputs of the SATORI FP7 project by practitioners reporting on VSD

Reflexivity and value-sensitive design

Value-Sensitive Design (VSD) offers a methodology to make social and moral values central to the design and development of new technologies. Although VSD incorporates views from philosophy and stakeholders involved in the process, it notably lacks reflexivity on the position of those involved in conducting the methodology itself e.g. ethicists, researchers and/or designers. Where technology is considered value-laden, the neutrality of those involved in the methodology seems to be taken for granted. The problem of a lack of reflexivity among VSD practitioners means stakeholder values may have less influence on technological design than is methodologically intended. Understanding VSD as an extension of applied ethical assessment offers a fruitful outlook on how to tackle this problem. As in any sort of ethical assessment, reflexivity and transparency are key to allow all stakeholders to participate, and to ensure outcomes are not decided through power relations alone. This will promote reflexivity and forward a culturally-sensitive approach to VSD that may simplify the process across different cultures. If the designs produced by VSD are seen as products of ethical debates, the lack of reflexivity in VSD undermines the credibility of the designs, understood in terms of how far the designs reflect the values of stakeholders encountered and not merely those of the designers. Without reflexivity the reasons supporting prioritisation and analysis of stakeholder values lose credibility, undermining the designs and technologies produced through VSD. As it stands, it is difficult to defend VSD and its designs as products of a coherent design methodology which identifies clear reasons for preferring certain values over others. To begin to correct this deficiency, the cultural-specificity of dominant ‘value frameworks’ in VSD should be reflexively assessed against the outputs of the SATORI FP7 project by practitioners reporting on VSD