Parity and the Resolution of Value Conflicts in Design

Author:

Kozlovski AtayORCID

Abstract

AbstractRecent developments in theories for responsible innovation have focused on the importance of actively accounting for values in our technological designs. Leading among these theories is that of Value Sensitive Design (VSD) which attempts to guide the design process on the basis of evaluative analysis. However, values often come into conflict and VSD has been criticized for not providing a proper method to resolve such inevitable conflicts. This paper examines three such methods and argues that although each has its merits, they all fail to account for a common source of value conflicts known as value incommensurability. Drawing on literature from the field of axiology, this paper argues that by incorporating the evaluative relation of ‘parity’ each of these three methods, and the VSD framework in general, will be able to properly understand the relation which holds between conflicting design options stemming from the incommensurable of values and be able to guide designers in making rational decision in the face of such conflicts.

Funder

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

University of Zurich

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Management of Technology and Innovation,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)

Reference38 articles.

1. Bozdag, E. & van de Poel, I. (2013). Designing for diversity in online news recommenders. Proceedings of PICMET '13: Technology management in the IT-driven services (PICMET), San Jose, CA. pp. 1101–1106.

2. Cenci, A., & Cawthorne, D. (2020). Refining value sensitive design: A (capability-based) procedural ethics approach to technological design for well-being. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2629–2662.

3. Chang, R. (1997). “Introduction” in incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Harvard University Press.

4. Chang, R. (2001). Making comparisons count. Routledge.

5. Chang, R. (2002). The possibility of parity. Ethics, 112, 659–688.

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3