TU Delft Publications

@article{nokey,

title = {Design for values and the city},

author = {Taylor Stone},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1909813},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-21},

urldate = {2021-04-21},

journal = {Journal of Responsible Innovation},

volume = {8},

issue = {3},

pages = {364-381},

abstract = {This paper undertakes a critical and constructive investigation into the applicability of value sensitive design (VSD) and design for values (DfV) methodologies for urban technologies, as a means to envision and enact responsible urban innovations. In particular, this paper focuses on the identification and analysis of values in urban technologies. First, an important methodological critique is highlighted, namely the vague articulation of ‘values' in VSD and DfV discourse. Next, cities are characterized as open, dynamic, and evolving systems, with ‘urban technologies’ as co-shapers of this process. This highlights the unique conditions requiring attention in order to arrive at a robust understanding of the relationship between values and urban technologies. Finally, these insights are combined to propose and sketch six heuristic principles aimed at surfacing and analysing values in urban technologies, offering a refinement of value-sensitive methodologies for the context of urban technological innovation.},

keywords = {design for values, philosophy of the city, responsible innovation, smart cities, urban innovation, urban technology, value sensitive design},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vandePoel2018,

title = {Design for value change},

author = {Ibo Poel},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9461-9},

doi = {10.1007/s10676-018-9461-9},

issn = {1572-8439},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-06-26},

journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},

abstract = {In the value sensitive design (VSD) literature, there has been little attention for how values may change during the adoption and use of a sociotechnical system, and what that implies for design. A value change taxonomy is proposed, as well as a number of technical features that allow dealing with value change.},

keywords = {adaptability, flexibility, robustness, theme:value-change, value change, value sensitive design, values},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Palmeros2018,

title = {Setting the design space of biorefineries through sustainability values, a practical approach},

author = {Parada Mar Palmeros and Asveld Lotte and Osseweijer Patricia and Posada John A.},

url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bbb.1819},

doi = {10.1002/bbb.1819},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-02-01},

journal = {Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining},

volume = {12},

number = {1},

pages = {29-44},

abstract = {Abstract Sustainable development has become an outstanding aspiration in our society. However, the meaning of sustainability and how it should be operationalized is a complex issue that depends on subjective beliefs and values. To advance toward sustainable biobased production, we present an approach to delimit the design space of biorefineries by considering stakeholders’ values. Concepts from Design for Values were taken as the starting point for this approach, which was further developed with a biojet fuel production case in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo. Design propositions that considered the interaction between stakeholders’ values, sustainability, and the production system were derived and used to suggest design space boundaries. These design boundaries are indicative, allowing for deliberation during future design activities. Through them, designers are prompted to actively reflect on the interaction between biorefinery systems and the socioeconomic and environmental context around them. By opening the design process to stakeholders’ values, we have developed a constructivist approach to incorporate sustainability in an inclusive and context-specific manner during the early stages of biorefinery design. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd},

keywords = {biojet fuel, biorefinery design, inclusive design, sustainability, sustainable biorefinery, value sensitive design},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{MOUTER2018639,

title = {A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands},

author = {Niek Mouter and Auke Geest and Neelke Doorn},

url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305275},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.020},

issn = {0301-4215},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

urldate = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Energy Policy},

volume = {122},

pages = {639 - 648},

abstract = {Many energy cases suffer from social opposition. It is increasingly asserted that paying due attention to the moral values involved in controversial energy cases may increase social acceptance. Value-sensitive design (VSD) has been recommended as a promising approach for addressing moral values in controversial energy cases. This paper aims to empirically explore the applicability of VSD in controversial energy cases by investigating the extent to which it is possible to identify the relevant values, norms and design requirements in the Groningen gas controversy (the Netherlands) using values hierarchies. It was found in this case that the relevant values, norms and design requirements could be retrieved, but that two conditions need to be fulfilled to avoid underexposure of relevant values. Firstly, data should be collected using a variety of data sources. Secondly, these sources should be analyzed through both top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. We find that ‘Safety’ is a critical value in the Groningen case, while other critical values are related to securing ‘Procedural Justice’. Strikingly, the important procedural values ‘Trust’ and ‘Honesty’ did not translate into concrete policies. Policy makers can use values hierarchies to address moral values in energy cases and to translate these values into concrete measures.},

keywords = {Energy controversy, energy policy, Groningen gas case, social acceptance, value sensitive design, Values hierarchy},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{10.3389/frobt.2018.00015,

title = {Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account},

author = {Filippo Santoni Sio and Jeroen Hoven},

url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frobt.2018.00015},

doi = {10.3389/frobt.2018.00015},

issn = {2296-9144},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

urldate = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Frontiers in Robotics and AI},

volume = {5},

pages = {15},

abstract = {Debates on lethal autonomous weapon systems have proliferated in the last five years. Ethical concerns have been voiced about a possible raise in the number of wrongs and crimes in military operations and about the creation of a “responsibility gap” for harms caused by these systems. To address these concerns, the principle of “meaningful human control” has been introduced in the legal-political debate; according to this principle humans not computers and their algorithms should ultimately remain in control of, and thus morally responsible for relevant decisions about (lethal) military operations. However, policy-makers and technical designers lack a detailed theory of what “meaningful human control” exactly means. In this paper we lay the foundation of a philosophical account of meaningful human control, based on the concept of “guidance control” as elaborated in the philosophical debate on free will and moral responsibility. Following the ideals of “Responsible Innovation” and “Value-sensitive Design” our account of meaningful human control is cast in the form of design requirements. We identify two general, necessary conditions to be satisfied for an autonomous system to remain under meaningful human control: first, a “tracking” condition, according to which the system should be able to respond to both the relevant moral reasons of the humans designing and deploying the system and the relevant facts in the environment in which the system operates; second, a “tracing” condition, according to which the system should be designed in such a way as to grant the possibility to always trace back the outcome of its operations to at least one human along the chain of design and operation. As we think that meaningful human control can be one of the central notions in ethics of robotics and AI, in the last part of the paper we start exploring the implications of our account for the design and use of non-military autonomous systems, for instance self-driving cars.},

keywords = {artificial intelligence, guidance control, lethal autonomous weapon systems, meaningful human control, moral responsibility, responsible innovation, value sensitive design, value:autonomy},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Robbins2017,

title = {Designing For Democracy: Bulk Data and Authoritarianism},

author = {Scott Robbins and Adam Henschke},

url = {https://pure.tudelft.nl/portal/files/24955831/Designing_for_democracy.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-06-01},

urldate = {2017-06-01},

journal = {Surveillance & Society},

volume = {15},

number = {3},

pages = {582-589},

abstract = {Transparency is important for liberal democracies; however, the value of transparency is difficult to articulate. In this article we 

articulate transparency as an instrumental value for providing what we call ensurance and assurance to liberal democratic citizens. Ensurance refers to the property of liberal democracies which prevents it from sliding into authoritarianism and assurance is the property whereby citizens are assured that ensurance exists. Looking at the rise of bulk data collection and use afforded by information communication technologies, this paper focuses on the way that technologies disrupt relations between the state and its citizens, and suggests Value Sensitive Design as a methodology to protect key aspects of liberal democracies. Bulk data collection makes the achieving of ensurance and assurance more difficult due to two types of opacity which arise as a result of the practice: technical opacity — the difficulty for citizens to understand the technology behind bulk data collection; and, algorithmic opacity — opacity which results from properties inherent to algorithms which guide the collection and processing of bulk data. Design requirements will be suggested to respond to the disruptions caused by ICTs between liberal democracies and their citizens which threaten the necessary value for liberal democracies of representativeness.},

keywords = {algorithmic opacity, democracy, design for democracy, ICT, technical opacity, transparency, value sensitive design, value:democracy},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Harbers2017,

title = {Value sensitive design of a virtual assistant for workload harmonization in teams},

author = {Maaike Harbers and Mark A. Neerincx},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10111-017-0408-4},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-03-25},

journal = {Cognition, Technology & Work},

volume = {19},

number = {2-3},

pages = {329–343},

abstract = {Uneven workload distributions in teams can lead to suboptimal team performance. This paper therefore describes the design of a virtual assistant that supports workload harmonization in teams by measuring workload, informing team members about their own and other team members’ workload, and supporting team members in the redistribution of workload. The virtual assistant was developed in the context of train traffic control according to the situated Cognitive Engineering (sCE) methodology, which was extended to allow for a value sensitive design process. More specifically, the values ‘insight,’ ‘helping others’ and ‘privacy’ were explicitly accounted for throughout the design of the virtual assistant. A prototype of the virtual assistant was evaluated positively in a focus group. Thereby, the contribution of the paper is twofold. First, an improvement in a human-centered development methodology—sCE with values—is described and its use is demonstrated in an actual design case. Second, a novel, positively evaluated solution for workload harmonization in teams is presented.},

keywords = {human–computer interaction, privacy, situated cognitive engineering, teamwork, traffic control, value sensitive design, virtual assistant, workload},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{HCI-015,

title = {A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods},

author = {Batya Friedman and David G Hendry and Alan Borning},

url = {https://www-nowpublishers-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/article/Details/HCI-015},

doi = {10.1561/1100000015},

issn = {1551-3955},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

journal = {Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction},

volume = {11},

number = {2},

pages = {63-125},

abstract = {Value sensitive design is a theoretically grounded approach to the design of technology that accounts for human values in a principled and systematic manner throughout the design process. In this article we provide a survey of 14 value sensitive design methods: 

(1) direct and indirect stakeholder analysis; (2) value source analysis; (3) co-evolution of technology and social structure; (4) value scenario; (5) value sketch; (6) value-oriented semi- structured interview; (7) scalable information dimensions; (8) value-oriented coding manual; (9) value-oriented mockup, prototype, or field deployment; (10) ethnographically informed inquiry regarding values and technology; (11) model of informed consent online; (12) value dams and flows; (13) value sensitive action-reflection model; and (14) Envisioning Cards TM. 

Each of these methods is honed to the investigation of values in technology, serving such purposes as stakeholder identification and legitimation, value representation and elicitation, and values analysis. While presented individually, the methods are intended to be integrated in a robust value sensitive design process. 

The survey article begins with a brief summary of value sensitive design methodology and theoretical constructs. We next provide an overview of the 14 methods. Then, we turn to a broader discussion of value sensitive design practice, focussing on some methodological strategies and heuristics to support skillful value sensitive design practice. Following the broad discussion of practice, we illustrate one method in action—value scenarios—providing details on its range of purposes and contexts. We conclude with reflections on core characteristics of value sensitive design methodology, and heuristics for innovation.},

keywords = {methodology, stakeholder identification, value elicitation, value sensitive design, values analysis},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanWynsberghe2016,

title = {Service robots, care ethics, and design},

author = {Aimee Wynsberghe},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9409-x},

doi = {10.1007/s10676-016-9409-x},

issn = {1572-8439},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-12-01},

urldate = {2016-12-01},

journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},

volume = {18},

number = {4},

pages = {311–321},

abstract = {It should not be a surprise in the near future to encounter either a personal or a professional service robot in our homes and/or our work places: according to the International Federation for Robots, there will be approx 35 million service robots at work by 2018. Given that individuals will interact and even cooperate with these service robots, their design and development demand ethical attention. With this in mind I suggest the use of an approach for incorporating ethics into the design process of robots known as Care Centered Value Sensitive Design (CCVSD). Although this approach was originally and intentionally designed for the healthcare domain, the aim of this paper is to present a preliminary study of how personal and professional service robots might also be evaluated using the CCVSD approach. The normative foundations for CCVSD come from its reliance on the care ethics tradition and in particular the use of care practices for: (1) structuring the analysis and, (2) determining the values of ethical import. To apply CCVSD outside of healthcare one must show that the robot has been integrated into a care practice. Accordingly, the practice into which the robot is to be used must be assessed and shown to meet the conditions of a care practice. By investigating the foundations of the approach I hope to show why it may be applicable for service robots and further to give examples of current robot prototypes that can and cannot be evaluated using CCVSD.},

keywords = {applied ethics, artificial intelligence, care ethics, robot ethics, service robots, value sensitive design, value:health},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Dignum2016,

title = {Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas},

author = {Marloes Dignum and Aad Correljé and Eefje Cuppen and Udo Pesch and Behnam Taebi},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9685-6},

doi = {10.1007/s11948-015-9685-6},

issn = {1471-5546},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-08-01},

urldate = {2016-08-01},

journal = {Science and Engineering Ethics},

volume = {22},

number = {4},

pages = {1171-1191},

abstract = {The introduction of new energy technologies may lead to public resistance and contestation. It is often argued that this phenomenon is caused by an inadequate inclusion of relevant public values in the design of technology. In this paper we examine the applicability of the value sensitive design (VSD) approach. While VSD was primarily introduced for incorporating values in technological design, our focus in this paper is expanded towards the design of the institutions surrounding these technologies, as well as the design of stakeholder participation. One important methodological challenge of VSD is to identify the relevant values related to new technological developments. In this paper, we argue that the public debate can form a rich source from which to retrieve the values at stake. To demonstrate this, we have examined the arguments used in the public debate regarding the exploration and exploitation of shale gas in the Netherlands. We identified two important sets of the underlying values, namely substantive and procedural values. This paper concludes with two key findings. Firstly, contrary to what is often suggested in the literature, both proponents and opponents seem to endorse the same values. Secondly, contestation seems to arise in the precise operationalization of these values among the different stakeholders. In other words, contestation in the Dutch shale gas debate does not arise from inter-value conflict but rather from intra-value conflicts. This multi-interpretability should be incorporated in VSD processes.},

keywords = {energy policy, public values, responsible innovation, shale gas, theme:value-conflicts, value sensitive design},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}