Project Update
This week, I continued to work on analyzing the data from the manager interviews. Data analysis is taking way longer than we expected! Part of that is because the scope of the project has become much larger than we expected. When we started the project, we were working off of assumptions from an old PRD about manager involvement in the coaching journey–namely, that more involvement/engagement enhances the coaching experience. But we were given the chance to do some really foundational user research that allowed us to zoom out, challenge those initial assumptions, and produce really interesting data. Whatever solution we design has to prioritize the direct report’s privacy and autonomy over all else. That creates a kind of tension in regards to manager involvement–is more involvement really beneficial to the direct report? Or does that create an uncomfortable experience for the DR in which they feel that they’re losing some control over their coaching journey?
It’s a super interesting question, especially since the company hasn’t taken an overall stance on manager involvement. The research we’re doing now might inform that strategy.
Readings
Since the themes of “autonomy” and “privacy” kept cropping up in our analysis, I thought it might be interesting to center this week’s readings around design ethics!
One approach to design ethics–known as value-sensitive design–is a formative framework meant to support the design and development of value-centric technologies. Its primary purpose is to ensure that human values are being considered and incorporated proactively in the design of a technology (Friedman et al., 2002; Hendry et al., 2021). The framework comprises conceptual, empirical, and technical explorations of a particular value and its relationship to a technology. Conceptual, empirical, and technical investigations are not meant to be executed in any specific sequence, but can happen simultaneously and can inform one another. However, conceptual investigations of a value are typically conducted first (Winkler & Spiekermann, 2021).
Conceptual investigations of a particular design problem aim to concretely conceptualize the values relevant to said problem, as well as determine who should be considered during the design process. At this stage, designers perform stakeholder analysis–the identification of the direct and indirect stakeholders within a problem space. Direct stakeholders are individuals who directly interact with or are impacted by a particular technology. Indirect stakeholders–though not directly interacting with a particular technology–still feel its effects (Friedman et al., 2002; Hendry et al., 2021). The potential harms to these stakeholders must be considered. Value tensions must also be considered–does prioritizing one value endanger another? (Winkler & Spiekermann, 2021).
Any kind of qualitative/quantitative research performed (e.g. interviews, surveys, contextual inquiry/ethnography, etc.) falls within the realm of empirical investigation. Empirical investigation can often lead to a deeper conceptual understanding of a problem. Finally, technological investigations involve translating conceptual & empirical knowledge into the design of a specific technology (Friedman et al., 2002).
For example, the newly arrived “App Limits” option on the iPhone is a design feature meant to support user autonomy. How might we analyze this feature within the context of value-centered design? The process might involve developing a conceptual definition of autonomy, as well as the identification of the people who might benefit from or be harmed by this technology. Empirical investigations would include any kind of user research completed; the designers might have interviewed stakeholders, conducted surveys, etc. And finally, the development of the feature itself would of course constitute a technological investigation. The creation of such a feature might prompt designers to revise/reconsider their original definition of autonomy, or to conduct more user research—thereby giving rise to further conceptual and empirical investigations.
Sources
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2002). Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Value-Sensitive-Design%3A-Theory-and-Methods-Friedman-Kahn/54bfbe5a886807bf3b80cdd201a7140eaf26ad70
Hendry, D. G., Friedman, B., & Ballard, S. (2021). Value sensitive design as a formative framework. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09579-x
Winkler, T., & Spiekermann, S. (2021). Twenty years of value sensitive design: A review of methodological practices in VSD projects. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9476-2