Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.

1561/1100000073

Values and Ethics in

Human-Computer
Interaction
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Other titles in Foundations and Trends

R
in Human-Computer Inter-
action

HCI’s Making Agendas

Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, Cindy Lin, Silvia Lindtner and
Austin Toombs
ISBN: 978-1-68083-372-0

A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods

Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry and Alan Borning
ISBN: 978-1-68083-290-7

Communicating Personal Genomic Information to Non-experts:

A New Frontier for Human-Computer Interaction
Orit Shaer, Oded Nov, Lauren Westendorf and Madeleine Ball
ISBN: 978-1-68083-254-9

Personal Fabrication
Patrick Baudisch and Stefanie Mueller
ISBN: 978-1-68083-258-7

Canine-Centered Computing
Larry Freil, Ceara Byrne, Giancarlo Valentin, Clint Zeagler,
David Roberts, Thad Starner and Melody Jackson
ISBN: 978-1-68083-244-0

Exertion Games
Florian Mueller, Rohit Ashok Khot, Kathrin Gerling and
Regan Mandryk
ISBN: 978-1-68083-202-0
Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Values and Ethics in

Human-Computer Interaction

Katie Shilton
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
[email protected]

Boston — Delft
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Foundations and Trends

R
in Human-Computer
Interaction

Published, sold and distributed by:

now Publishers Inc.
PO Box 1024
Hanover, MA 02339
United States
Tel. +1-781-985-4510
www.nowpublishers.com
[email protected]
Outside North America:
now Publishers Inc.
PO Box 179
2600 AD Delft
The Netherlands
Tel. +31-6-51115274
The preferred citation for this publication is
K. Shilton. Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Interaction. Foundations and
Trends R
in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 107–171, 2018.
ISBN: 978-1-68083-467-3
c 2018 K. Shilton

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission of the publishers.
Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users
registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). The ‘services’ for users can be found on
the internet at: www.copyright.com
For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license, a separate system of payment
has been arranged. Authorization does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as that for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale. In the rest of the world: Permission to photocopy must be obtained from the
copyright owner. Please apply to now Publishers Inc., PO Box 1024, Hanover, MA 02339, USA;
Tel. +1 781 871 0245; www.nowpublishers.com; [email protected]
now Publishers Inc. has an exclusive license to publish this material worldwide. Permission
to use this content must be obtained from the copyright license holder. Please apply to now
Publishers, PO Box 179, 2600 AD Delft, The Netherlands, www.nowpublishers.com; e-mail:
[email protected]
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Foundations and Trends R

in Human-Computer
Interaction
Volume 12, Issue 2, 2018
Editorial Board
Editor-in-Chief
Desney S. Tan
Microsoft Research

Editors
Ben Bederson
University of Maryland
Sheelagh Carpendale
University of Calgary
Andy Cockburn
University of Canterbury
Jon Froehlich
University of Maryland
Juan Pablo Hourcade
University of Iowa
Karrie Karahalios
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Youn-Kyung Lim
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Nuria Oliver
Telefonica
Orit Shaer
Wellesley College
Kentaro Toyama
University of Michigan
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Editorial Scope
Topics
Foundations and Trends R
in Human-Computer Interaction publishes survey
and tutorial articles in the following topics:
• History of the research community
• Theory
• Technology
• Computer Supported Cooperative Work
• Interdisciplinary influence
• Advanced topics and trends

Information for Librarians

Foundations and Trends R
in Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, Vol-
ume 12, 4 issues. ISSN paper version 1551-3955. ISSN online version
1551-3963. Also available as a combined paper and online subscription.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 Mapping the Literature: Interdisciplinary

Approaches to Values and Ethics in Design 6
2.1 Critique approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Taking action with design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Designing Good: Controversies in Applying

Values and Ethics to Design 20
3.1 Vocabulary: Values, ethics and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Locating values and ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Whose values? Challenges of inventories, frameworks,
and plurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4 Fitting Values to Design: Making Values

an Explicit Design Practice 32
4.1 Values advocates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Real-time technology assessment and socio-technical
integration research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Values levers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.4 Ethical system development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.5 Toolkits for designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

5 Challenges and Opportunities for the Next

Generation of Values-Oriented Design 40
5.1 Cultivating cultures of ethics in HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2 Ethics for data-oriented design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3 The limits of values and ethics in design . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 Conclusion 45

Acknowledgements 48

References 49
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

Values and Ethics in

Human-Computer Interaction
Katie Shilton
University of Maryland, College Park, USA; [email protected]

ABSTRACT
An important public discussion is underway on the values
and ethics of digital technologies as designers work to prevent
misinformation campaigns, online harassment, exclusionary
tools, and biased algorithms. This monograph reviews 30
years of research on theories and methods for surfacing values
and ethics in technology design. It maps the history of values
research, beginning with critique of design from related disci-
plines and responses in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
research. The review then explores ongoing controversies
in values-oriented design, including disagreements around
terms, expressions and indicators of values and ethics, and
whose values to consider. Next, the monograph describes
frameworks that attempt to move values-oriented design
into everyday design settings. These frameworks suggest
open challenges and opportunities for the next 30 years of
values in HCI research.

Katie Shilton (2018), “Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Interaction”,

Foundations and Trends R
in Human-Computer Interaction: Vol. 12, No. 2, pp
107–171. DOI: 10.1561/1100000073.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

1
Introduction

Recent news has brought values and ethics in technology design to the
forefront of public debate: questions about the goals and politics of
human-designed devices, and whether the social interactions of those
devices are good, fair, or just. For example, reporters have surfaced
the role of social media platforms such as Facebook in the 2016 U.S.
election (Doubek, 2017; Rosenberg et al., 2018). Designers have spoken
out about the psychological tricks phone apps use to hog user attention
(Lewis, 2017). Weapons of Math Destruction (O’Neil, 2017), an overview
of problems of bias in mathematical modeling, was a New York Times
bestseller and long-listed for the National Book Award. Technically
Wrong: Sexist Aps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic
Tech accused “an insular industry” of creating alienating and harmful
technologies (Wachter-Boettcher, 2017, p. 9). High-profile university
computing programs are reporting increased demand for ethics courses
(Singer, 2018).
How to avoid biased practices, and instead conduct ethical, just
design has been a topic of investigation and conversation within human–
computer interaction (HCI) for more than 30 years. Long the province
of academic debate, it is edifying to see news and industry sources

2
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

paying close attention to bias and unfairness in the complex network of

designers, technological systems, users, and indirect stakeholders that
make up our sociotechnical world. This complex sociotechnical network,
however, also explains why this discussion has gone on so long, and
why it is so challenging. Avoiding bias and unfairness when people and
systems are thoroughly entangled is a wicked problem. Technologies
may have unpredictable effects, and users may have unpredictable
reactions. Direct and indirect stakeholders of technologies are difficult
to enumerate. Our design practices may impact people beyond our users,
whether through the collection and use of information about people
during design, through secondary unintended consequences, or because
of the natural resources our technologies use.
If there were clear rules to follow, HCI would have long ago demon-
strated how to avoid biased design. Instead, we have rich debates over
what constitutes a “value” or an “ethic”; ontological dilemmas over
where such entities or actions might reside in people, technology, or their
interaction; questions of agency and intention in design; and reflective,
almost artisanal design practices designed to bring all of these questions
to the forefront of development.
The good news is that more people are engaging with the wicked
problem of values and ethics in design. For example, Borning and Muller
(2012) note the large increase in papers in the ACM Digital Library
mentioning “human values,” from 20 in 2000 to 113 in 2010. By this
measure, attention has only increased: the number of papers mentioning
“human values” has nearly doubled again (to more than 210) by 2017.1
Adding “ethics” and restricting the search to abstracts expands the
number exponentially, to more than 4,000, with most of those papers
authored after 2000. At CHI 2017, workshop participants authored
the “Denver Manifesto” to “unequivocally state that values play key
roles in the design, development and deployment of technologies and
that there is a need for discussion and action on the topic” (Ferrario,
2017). In an introduction to an edited collection on design and ethics,

1
Scholarly publication in general is estimated to grow 8–9% per year (Bornmann
and Mutz, 2015). Human values research well outpaced that growth between 2000
and 2010, although not between 2010 and 2017.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

4 Introduction

Zelenko and Felton (2012) describe “an ‘ethical turn’ occurring in . . . the
design fields.” Van den Hoven similarly describes both “a value turn
in engineering design and on the other hand a design turn in thinking
about values” (van den Hoven, 2017, p. 66).
An ethical turn hardly seems new to HCI, a field long concerned
with accessibility, usability, and participation. This review monograph
considers accumulated wisdom about how to design just, ethical systems
in HCI and cognate areas such as philosophy of technology, science and
technology studies (STS), and information studies. Section 2 describes
these interdisciplinary approaches within the literature on values and
ethics in design. It maps the roots of values-oriented design in philosophy
of technology and describes critical traditions that sensitized academics
and designers to the ethical issues in their work. It then describes
movements within HCI that seek to take ethical action using design
methods.
Section 3 dives into controversies within these literatures. It tackles
meaning and ontology, describing why different literatures use “values,”
“ethics,” or other terms, and what is signaled by this terminology.
It then discusses the problem of recognizing and locating values and
ethics, including scholarship that positions values as attributes of people,
features of technology, or elements of practice. The section also explores
controversies centered on the power and agency of designers, including
questions of whose values matter to design, and to what degree designers
influence the values associated with a technology.
Section 4 departs from controversies to build a practice-oriented way
forward for ethical technology design. It discusses workplace approaches
to ethical technology design motivated and informed by the HCI
literature.
Section 5 explores the limits of values-oriented design by exploring
critical issues that design methods struggle to address, and the new
research areas and opportunities opened by these limits. The conclusion,
Section 6, offers some thoughts on moving forward as a field in a
particularly challenging time for ethics in design.
In their monograph “Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the
Service of Values,” wisely encourage values scholarship “to integrate
stories from concrete situations of design practice” (JafariNaimi et
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

al., 2015, p. 102) to keep values scholarship grounded in real-world

contexts. Responding to this call, this monograph draws from my own
research observations of design teams to illustrate controversies, values-
oriented design methods, and open challenges in values-oriented design.
By illustrating the broad values and ethics literature, controversies,
methods, and open challenges, my hope is to help values scholars plan
the next 30 years of designing just, equitable technologies.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References

Agre, P. E. 1997. “Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned

in trying to reform AI”. In: Social Science, Technical Systems, and
Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide. Ed. by G. C. Bowker, L.
Gasser, S. L. Star, and B. Turner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 131–158.
Albrechtslund, A. 2007. “Ethics and technology design”. Ethics and
Information Technology. 9(1): 63–72.
Alexander, L. and M. Moore. 2012. “Deontological ethics”. In: The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by E. N. Zalta. Retrieved
from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/ethics-
deontological/. Winter 2012.
Alsheikh, T., J. A. Rode, and S. E. Lindley. 2011. “(Whose) value-
sensitive design: A study of long-distance relationships in an Arabic
cultural context”. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
75–84.
Ames, M. G., J. Go, J. J. Kaye, and M. Spasojevic. 2011. “Understanding
technology choices and values through social class”. In: Proceedings
of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958834. New York, NY,
USA: ACM. 55–64.

49
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

50 References

Azenkot, S., S. Prasain, A. Borning, E. Fortuna, R. E. Ladner, and

J. O. Wobbrock. 2011. “Enhancing independence and safety for
blind and deaf-blind public transit riders”. In: Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979424. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
3247–3256.
Bardzell, S. 2010. “Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda
for design”. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
1753326.1753521. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 1301–1310.
Bellotti, V. 1998. “Design for privacy in multimedia computing and
communications environments”. In: Technology and Privacy: The
New Landscape. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press. 63–98.
Bellotti, V. and A. Sellen. 1993. “Design for privacy in ubiquitous
computing environments”. In: European Conference on Computer-
Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW’93. Milano, Italy: Dordrecht:
Kluwer. 77–92.
Bidwell, N. J. 2016. “Decolonising HCI and interaction design discourse:
Some considerations in planning afriCHI”. XRDS. 22(4): 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2930884.
Bidwell, N. J. and H. Winschiers-Theophilus. 2015. At the Intersection
of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge and Technology Design.
Informing Science Press.
Boast, R., M. Bravo, and R. Srinivasan. 2007. “Return to babel: Emer-
gent diversity, digital resources, and local knowledge”. The Infor-
mation Society. 23(5): 395–403.
Borning, A. and M. Muller. 2012. “Next steps for value sensitive design”.
In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.
2208560. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 1125–1134.
Bornmann, L. and R. Mutz. 2015. “Growth rates of modern science: A
bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited
references”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology. 66(11): 2215–2222. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 51

boyd, D. 2012. “White flight in networked publics? How race and class
shaped American teen engagement with MySpace and Facebook”.
In: Race After the Internet. Ed. by L. Nakamura and P. Chow-White.
New York and London: Routledge. 203–222.
Breaking News. 2017. RadioLab. Retrieved from: http://www.radiolab.
org / story / breaking - news / ?utm _ source = sharedUrl & utm _
medium=metatag&utm_campaign=sharedUrl.
Brey, P. A. E. 2000a. “Disclosive computer ethics”. SIGCAS Computers
and Socity. 30(4): 10–16.
Brey, P. A. E. 2000b. “Method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-
level interdisciplinary approach”. Ethics and Information Technology.
2(2): 125–129. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010076000182.
Briggs, P. and L. Thomas. 2015. “An inclusive, value sensitive design
perspective on future identity technologies”. ACM Transactions
Computers-Human Interactions. 22(5): 23:1–23:28. http://doi.org/
10.1145/2778972.
Brown, B., A. Weilenmann, D. McMillan, and A. Lampinen. 2016. “Five
provocations for ethical HCI Research”. In: Proceedings of the 34th
annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI 2016). Retrieved from: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=
2858313. San Jose, CA: ACM.
Bruckman, A. 2014. “Research ethics and HCI”. In: Ways of Knowing
in HCI. Ed. by J. S. Olson and W. A. Kellogg. http://doi.org/10.
1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_18. Springer New York. 449–468.
Bynum, T. 2016. “Computer and information ethics”. In: Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.
edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-computer/.
Capurro, R. 2008. “Information ethics for and from Africa”. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
59(7): 1162–1170. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20850.
Cavoukian, A. 2012. Operationalizing Privacy by Design: A Guide to
Implementing Strong Privacy Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.
privacybydesign.ca/index.php/paper/operationalizing-privacy-by-
design-a-guide-to-implementing-strong-privacy-practices/. Ontario,
Canada: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

52 References

Cheng, A.-S. and K. R. Fleischmann. 2010. “Developing a meta-

inventory of human values”. Proceedings of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology. 47(1): 1–10. http://doi.
org/10.1002/meet.14504701232.
Christen, K. 2012. “Does information really want to be free? Indigenous
knowledge systems and the question of openness”. International
Journal of Communication. 6: 2870–2893.
Clement, A. 1990. “Cooperative support for computer work: A social
perspective on the empowering of end users”. In: Proceedings of the
1990 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work.
http://doi.org/10.1145/99332.99357. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
223–236.
Cockburn, C. 1999. “Caught in the wheels: The high cost of being a
female cog in the male machinery of engineering”. In: The Social
Shaping of Technology. Ed. by D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman. Buck-
ingham UK Philadelphia: McGraw Hill Education/Open University.
Cockton, G. 2004. “From quality in use to value in the world”. In:
Proceedings of CHI 2004. 1287–1290.
Cockton, G. 2008. “Designing worth — connecting preferred means to
desired ends”. Interactions Magazine. 15(4): 54–57. http://doi.org/
10.1145/1374489.1374502.
Czeskis, A., I. Dermendjieva, H. Yapit, A. Borning, B. Friedman, B. Gill,
and T. Kohno. 2010. “Parenting from the pocket: Value tensions
and technical directions for secure and private parent-teen mobile
safety”. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy
and Security. http://doi.org/10.1145/1837110.1837130. New York,
NY, USA: ACM. 15:1–15:15.
Davis, J. 2009. “Design methods for ethical persuasive computing”.
In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive
Technology. http://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541957. New York,
NY, USA: ACM. 6:1–6:8.
Davis, J. and L. P. Nathan. 2015. “Value sensitive design: Applications,
adaptations, and critiques”. In: Handbook of Ethics, Values and
Technological Design. Ed. by J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, and
I. Van der Poel. Springer. 11–40.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 53

Dix, A. 2017. “Where are the values? Locating and reasoning 25 years
on”. Presented at the CHI 2017 Workshop on Values In Computing,
Retrieved from: http://www.valuesincomputing.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/dix_where_vic2017.pdf.
Doubek, J. 2017. “How disinformation and distortions on social media
affected elections worldwide”. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.
org / sections / alltechconsidered / 2017 / 11 / 16 / 564542100 / how -
disinformation-and-distortions-on-social-media-affected-elections-
worldwide.
Dourish, P., J. Finlay, P. Sengers, and P. Wright. 2004. “Reflective
HCI: Towards a critical technical practice”. In: CHI ’04 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/
10.1145/985921.986203. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 1727–1728.
Driscoll, K. and S. Walker. 2014. “Working within a black box: Trans-
parency in the collection and production of big twitter data”. Inter-
national Journal of Communication. 8: 1745–1764.
Driver, J. 2009. “The history of utilitarianism”. In: The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2009. Ed. by E. N. Zalta.
Retrieved from: http : / / plato . stanford . edu / archives / sum2009 /
entries/utilitarianism-history/.
Eglash, R. 2002. “Race, sex and nerds: From black geeks to Asian
American hipsters”. Social Text. 20(2): 49–64.
Ess, C. 2009. Digital Media Ethics. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA:
Polity Press.
Ferrario, M. A. 2017. “The Denver manifesto — values in computing”.
Retrieved from: http://www.valuesincomputing.org/2017/05/11/
the-denver-manifesto/.
Fiesler, C., S. Morrison, and A. S. Bruckman. 2016. “An archive of
their own: A case study of feminist HCI and values in design”.
In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858409. New
York, NY, USA: ACM. 2574–2585.
Fisher, E. 2007. “Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of
laboratory decisions”. NanoEthics. 1(2): 155–165.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

54 References

Fisher, E. and R. Mahajan. 2010. “Embedding the humanities in

engineering: Art, dialogue, and a laboratory”. In: Trading Zones
and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration.
Ed. by M. E. Gorman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 209–230.
Fisher, E., M. O’Rourke, R. Evans, E. B. Kennedy, M. E. Gorman, and
T. P. Seager. 2015. “Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of
socio-technical collaborations”. Journal of Responsible Innovation.
2(1): 39–61. http://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.
Flanagan, M. and H. Nissenbaum. 2014. Values at Play in Digital Games.
1st. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fleischmann, K. R. 2013. Information and Human Values. Morgan &
Claypool Publishers.
Fleischmann, K. R., W. A. Wallace, and J. M. Grimes. 2011. “How
values can reduce conflicts in the design process: Results from a
multi-site mixed-method field study”. Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology. 48(1): 1–10. http:
//doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801147.
Friedman, B. 1997. Human Values and the Design of Computer Tech-
nology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, B., A. Borning, J. L. Davis, B. T. Gill, P. H. Kahn, T.
Kriplean, and P. Lin. 2008. “Laying the foundations for public
participation and value advocacy: Interaction design for a large
scale urban simulation”. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International
Conference on Digital Government Research. Retrieved from: http:
//portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1367883. Montreal, Canada:
Digital Government Society of North America. 305–314.
Friedman, B., N. G. Freier, and P. H. Kahn Jr. 2004. “Office window of
the future?: Two case studies of an augmented window”. In: CHI
’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
http://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986135. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
1559–1559.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 55

Friedman, B. and D. G. Hendry. 2012. “The envisioning cards: A

toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations”. In:
Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208562.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. 1145–1148.
Friedman, B., D. G. Hendry, and A. Borning. 2017. “A survey of
value sensitive design methods”. Foundations and Trends in Human-
Computer Interaction. 11(23): 63–125.
Friedman, B. and P. H. Kahn. 1992. “Human agency and responsible
computing: Implications for computer system design”. Journal of
Systems and Software. 17(1): 7–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/0164-
1212(92)90075-U.
Friedman, B. and P. H. Kahn. 2003. “Human values, ethics and design”.
In: The Human-computer Interaction Handbook. Ed. by J. A. Jacko
and A. Sears. Retrieved from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?
id=772072.772147. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
1177–1201.
Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn, and A. Borning. 2002. Value Sensitive Design:
Theory and Methods. Retrieved from: http://faculty.washington.edu/
pkahn/articles/vsd-theory-methods-tr.pdf. Seattle, WA: University
of Washington. 1–8.
Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn, and A. Borning. 2006. “Value sensitive design
and information systems”. In: Human–Computer Interaction and
Management Information Systems: Applications. Ed. by D. Galletta
and P. Zhang. Vol. 5. New York: M.E. Sharpe. 348–372.
Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn, and J. Hagman. 2003. “Hardware compan-
ions?: What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the Human–
Robotic relationship”. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/
642611.642660. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 273–280.
Friedman, B. and H. Nissenbaum. 1997. “Bias in computer systems”. In:
Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Ed. by B.
Friedman. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
21–40.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

56 References

Gandy, O. H. 2012. “Matrix multiplication and the digital divide”. In:

Race After the Internet. Ed. by L. Nakamura and P. Chow-White.
New York and London: Routledge. 128–145.
Gispen, J. n.d. “Ethics for designers”. Retrieved from: https://www.
ethicsfordesigners.com/.
Greene, D. and K. Shilton. 2017. “Platform privacies: Governance,
collaboration, and the different meanings of “privacy” in iOS and
Android development”. New Media & Society. http://doi.org/10.
1177/1461444817702397.
Guston, D. H. and D. Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-time technology assessment”.
Technology in Society. 24(1–2): 93–109.
Haimson, O. L. and A. L. Hoffmann. 2016. “Constructing and enforcing
“authentic” identity online: Facebook, real names, and non-normative
identities”. First Monday. 21(6). http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i6.
6791.
Hankerson, D., A. R. Marshall, J. Booker, H. El Mimouni, I. Walker,
and J. A. Rode. 2016. “Does technology have race?” In: Proceedings
of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892578.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. 473–486.
Hargittai, E. 2012. “Open doors, closed spaces? Differentiated adoption
of social network sites by user background”. In: Race After the
Internet. Ed. by L. Nakamura and P. Chow-White. London and New
York: Routledge. 223–245.
Hargittai, E. 2015. “Is bigger always better? Potential biases of big data
derived from social network sites”. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science. 659(1): 63–76. http://doi.
org/10.1177/0002716215570866.
Huff, C., L. Barnard, and W. Frey. 2008. “Good computing: A peda-
gogically focused model of virtue in the practice of computing (part
1)”. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society.
6(3): 246–278.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 57

Huldtgren, A. 2015. “Design for values in ICT Information and com-

munication technologies”. In: Handbook of Ethics, Values, and
Technological Design. Ed. by J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas,
and I. van de Poel. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_35.
Springer Netherlands. 739–767.
Hursthouse, R. 2013. “Virtue ethics”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Ed. by E. N. Zalta. Retrieved from: http://plato.
stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue/.
Introna, L. D. and H. Nissenbaum. 2000. “Shaping the web: Why the
politics of search engines matters”. The Information Society. 16(3):
169–185. http://doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133634.
Irani, L. C. and P. Dourish. 2009. “Postcolonial interculturality”. In:
Proceedings of the 2009 International Workshop on Intercultural
Collaboration. http://doi.org/10.1145/1499224.1499268. New York,
NY, USA: ACM. 249–252.
Irani, L., J. Vertesi, P. Dourish, K. Philip, and R. E. Grinter. 2010.
“Postcolonial computing: A lens on design and development”. In:
Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753522.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. 1311–1320.
JafariNaimi, N., L. Nathan, and I. Hargraves. 2015. “Values as hypothe-
ses: Design, inquiry, and the service of values”. Design Issues. 31(4):
91–104. http://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00354.
Johnson, D. G. 2000. Computer Ethics. 3rd. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. G. 2011. “Software agents, anticipatory ethics, and account-
ability”. In: The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and
Legal-Ethical Oversight. Ed. by G. E. Marchant, B. R. Allenby, and
J. R. Herkert. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com.proxy-
um.researchport.umd.edu/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_5.
Springer Netherlands. 61–76.
Kline, R. and T. Pinch. 1999. “The social construction of technology”.
In: The Social Shaping of Technology. Ed. by D. MacKenzie and
J. Wajcman. Buckingham, UK; Philadelphia: McGraw Hill Educa-
tion/Open University. 113–115.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

58 References

Kling, R., A. Hopper, and J. Katz. 1992. “Controversies about privacy

and open information in CSCW”. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM
Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work. http://doi.
org/10.1145/143457.371594. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 15.
Kling, R., G. McKim, and A. King. 2003. “A bit more to it: Scholarly
communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks”.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech-
nology. 54(1): 47–67. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10154.
Kluckhohn, C. 1951. “Values and value-orientations in the theory of
action: An exploration in definition and classification”. In: Toward a
General Theory of Action. Ed. by T. Parsons and E. Shils. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. 388–433.
LeDantec, C. A. L., E. S. Poole, and S. P. Wyche. 2009. “Values as
lived experience: Evolving value sensitive design in support of value
discovery”. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). Retrieved from:
http : / / portal . acm . org / citation . cfm ? id = 1518701 . 1518875 &
coll = ACM & dl = ACM & type = series & idx = SERIES260 & part =
series&WantType=Proceedings&title=CHI&CFID=30156767&
CFTOKEN=97894460. Boston, MA, USA: ACM. 1141–1150.
Lewis, P. 2017. ““Our minds can be hijacked”: The tech insiders who
fear a smartphone dystopia”. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http:
//www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-
addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia.
Light, A. 2011. “HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the
queering of interaction with computers”. Interacting with Computers.
23(5): 430–438. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.02.002.
Lindgreen, A., F. Maon, J. Reast, and M. Yani-De-Soriano. 2012. “Guest
editorial: Corporate social responsibility in controversial industry
sectors”. Journal of Business Ethics. 110(4): 393–395. http://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-012-1488-y.
Loo, S. 2012. “Design-ing ethics”. In: Design and Ethics: Reflections
on Practice. Ed. by E. Felton, O. Zelenko, and S. Vaughan. London
and New York: Routledge. 10–19.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 59

MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman, eds. 1999. The Social Shaping of

Technology. 2nd. Buckingham UK; Philadelphia: McGraw Hill Edu-
cation/Open University.
Mainsah, H. and A. Morrison. 2014. “Participatory design through a
cultural lens: Insights from postcolonial theory”. In: Proceedings of
the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry
Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium Papers, and
Key note Abstracts. Vol. 2. http://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662195.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. 83–86.
Manders-Huits, N. and M. Zimmer. 2012. “Values and pragmatic action:
The challenges of engagement with technical communities in support
of value-conscious design”. In: Design and Ethics: Reflections on
Practice. Ed. by E. Felton, O. Zelenko, and S. Vaughan. London
and New York: Routledge.
Merritt, S. and S. Bardzell. 2011. “Postcolonial language and culture
theory for HCI4D”. In: CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.
1979827. New York, NY, USA: ACM. 1675–1680.
Metcalf, J. and K. Crawford. 2016. “Where are human subjects in big
data research? The emerging ethics divide”. Big Data & Society.
3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716650211.
Miller, J. K., B. Friedman, and G. Jancke. 2007. “Value tensions in
design: The value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of
a corporation’s groupware system”. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Inter-
national ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work. Retrieved
from: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1316624.1316668.
Sanibel Island, Florida, USA: ACM. 281–290.
Moor, J. H. 1985. “What is computer ethics?” Metaphilosophy. 16(4):
266–275. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x.
Muller, M. 2014. “Whose values? Whose design?” In: Proceedings of
the CSCW 2014 Workshop on Co-Creating and Identity-Making in
CSCW. Baltimore, MD: ACM.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

60 References

Mun, M. Y., D. H. Kim, K. Shilton, D. Estrin, M. Hansen, and R.

Govindan. 2014. “PDVLoc: A personal data vault for controlled
location data sharing”. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks.
10(4). https://doi.org/10.1145/2523820.
Munteanu, C., H. Molyneaux, W. Moncur, M. Romero, S. O’Donnell,
and J. Vines. 2015. “Situational ethics: Re-thinking approaches to
formal ethics requirements for Human–Computer Interaction”. In:
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702481.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. 105–114.
Nakamura, L. 2000. “Where do you want to go today? Cybernetic
tourism, the Internet, and transnationality”. In: Race in Cyberspace.
Ed. by B. Kolko, L. Nakamura, and G. Rodman. New York: Rout-
ledge. 15–26.
Narayanan, A. and S. Vallor. 2014. “Why software engineering courses
should include ethics coverage”. Communications of the ACM. 57(3):
23–25. http://doi.org/10.1145/2566966.
Office of the Secretary of The National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The
Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection
of Human Subjects of Research. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
O’Neil, C. 2017. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases
Inequality and Threatens Democracy. reprint. New York: Broadway
Books.
Oosterlaken, I. 2015. “Applying value sensitive design (VSD) to wind
turbines and wind parks: An exploration”. Science and Engineering
Ethics. 21(2): 359–379. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9536-x.
Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. “Technological dramas”. Science, Technology &
Human Values. 17(3): 282–312.
Pinch, T. J. and W. E. Bijker. 1984. “The social construction of facts
and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology
of technology might benefit each other”. Social Studies of Science.
14(3): 399–441.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 61

Ratto, M. 2011. “Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in

technology and social life”. The Information Society. 27(4): 252–260.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819.
Ratto, M. 2014. “Textual doppelgangers: Critical issues in the study of
technology”. In: DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media.
Ed. by M. Ratto and M. Boler. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT
Press. 227–236.
Ratto, M. and M. Boler. 2014. “Introduction”. In: DIY Citizenship:
Critical Making and Social Media. Cambridge Massachusetts: The
MIT Press. 1–22.
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Reddy, S., K. Shilton, G. Denisov, C. Cenizal, D. Estrin, and M.
Srivastava. 2010. “Biketastic: Sensing and mapping for better biking”.
In: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI). http://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753598. Atlanta, GA:
ACM. 1817–1820.
Rosenberg, M., N. Confessore, and C. Cadwalladr. 2018. How trump
consultants exploited the facebook data of millions. The New York
Times, Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/
politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html.
Rotondo, A. and N. G. Freier. 2010. “The problem of defining values for
design: A lack of common ground between industry and academia?”
In: CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM. 4183–4188.
Sawyer, S. 2005. “Social informatics: Overview, principles and opportu-
nities”. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology. 31(5): 9–12. http://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2005.
1720310504.
Sawyer, S. and M. Jarrahi. 2014. “The sociotechnical perspective”. In:
CRC Handbook of Computing. Ed. by A. Tucker and H. Topi. New
York: Chapman and Hall. 5-1-5–27.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

62 References

Schlesinger, A., W. K. Edwards, and R. E. Grinter. 2017. “Intersectional

HCI: Engaging identity through gender, race, and class”. In: Proceed-
ings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. http://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025766. New York, NY,
USA: ACM. 5412–5427.
Sengers, P., K. Boehner, S. David, and J. J. Kaye. 2005. “Reflective
design”. In: Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical
Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility. Retrieved from: http:
//doi.acm.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569. New York, NY, USA:
ACM. 49–58.
Sengers, P., J. McCarthy, and P. Dourish. 2006. “Reflective HCI:
Articulating an agenda for critical practice”. In: CHI ’06 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Montreal, CA:
ACM. 1683–1686.
Shilton, K. 2009. “Four billion little brothers?: Privacy, mobile phones,
and ubiquitous data collection”. Communications of the ACM.
52(11): 48–53. http://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592778.
Shilton, K. 2013. “Values levers: Building ethics into design”. Science,
Technology & Human Values. 38(3): 374–397. http://doi.org/10.
1177/0162243912436985.
Shilton, K. 2015. “Anticipatory ethics for a future Internet: Analyzing
values during the design of an Internet infrastructure”. Science and
Engineering Ethics. 21(1): 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-
9510-z.
Shilton, K. 2018. “Engaging values despite neutrality: challenges and
approaches to values reflection during the design of internet infras-
tructure”. Science, Technology and Human Values. 43(2): 247–269.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917714869.
Shilton, K. and S. Anderson. 2017. “Blended, not bossy: Ethics roles,
responsibilities and expertise in design”. Interacting with Computers.
29(1): 71–79. http://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iww002.
Shilton, K., J. A. Burke, K. C. Claffy, and L. Zhang. 2016. “Anticipating
policy and social implications of named data networking”. Communi-
cations of the ACM. 59(12): 92–101. http://doi.org/10.1145/2915915.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 63

Shilton, K. and D. Greene. 2017. “Linking platforms, practices, and

developer ethics: Levers for privacy discourse in mobile application
development”. Journal of Business Ethics. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-017-3504-8.
Shilton, K., J. A. Koepfler, and K. R. Fleischmann. 2013. “Charting
sociotechnical dimensions of values for design research”. The Infor-
mation Society. 29(5): 259–271. http://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.
2013.825357.
Shilton, K., J. A. Koepfler, and K. R. Fleischmann. 2014. “How to see
values in social computing: Methods for studying values dimensions”.
In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2014). http://doi.
org/10.1145/2531602.2531625. Baltimore, MD: ACM. 426–435.
Singer, N. 2018. “Tech’s ethical ‘dark side’: Harvard, Stanford and
others want to address it”. In: The New York Times. Retrieved
from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/business/computer-
science-ethics-courses.html.
Spiekermann, S. 2015. Ethical IT Innovation: A Value-Based System
Design Approach. Boca Raton: Auerbach Publications.
Srinivasan, R. 2017. Whose Global Village?: Rethinking How Technology
Shapes Our World. New York: NYU Press.
Tong, R. and N. Williams. 2016. “Feminist ethics”. In: The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. by E. N. Zalta. Retrieved from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/feminism-
ethics/. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter
2016.
Vallor, S. 2016. Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to
a Future Worth Wanting. 1st. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
van den Hoven, J. 2017. “Ethics for the digital age: Where are the moral
specs?” In: Informatics in the Future. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-55735-9_6. Springer, Cham. 65–76.
van Wynsberghe, A. and S. Robbins. 2014. “Ethicist as designer: A
pragmatic approach to ethics in the lab”. Science and Engineering
Ethics. 20(4): 947–961. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9498-4.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

64 References

Velasquez, M., C. Andre, T. Shanks, and Meyer. 1987. “A definition of

ethics in terms of standards such as rights and fairness”. Issues in
Ethics. 1(1). Retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-
resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/.
Vitak, J., N. Proferes, K. Shilton, and Z. Ashktorab. 2017. “Ethics
regulation in social computing research: Examining the role of
institutional review boards”. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics. http://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617725200.
Vitak, J., K. Shilton, and Z. Ashktorab. 2016. “Beyond the Belmont
principles: Ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data
research community”. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
(CSCW 2016). San Francisco, CA: ACM.
Wachter-Boettcher, S. 2017. Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased
Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. 1st. New York, NY:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Wagner, I. 1992. “Caught in a web of fuzzy problems: Confronting
the ethical issues in systems design”. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
Biennial Participatory Design Conference. Retrieved from: http:
//ojs.ruc.dk/index.php/pdc/article/view/74. Cambridge, MA.
23–30.
Wajcman, J. 2010. “Domestic technology: Labour-saving or enslaving?”
In: Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Ed. by C. Hanks.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 273–288.
Waycott, J., G. Wadley, S. Schutt, A. Stabolidis, and R. Lederman.
2015. “The challenge of technology research in sensitive settings:
Case studies in “Ensitive HCI””. In: Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer
Human Interaction. http : / / doi . org / 10 . 1145 / 2838739 . 2838773.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. 240–249.
Weber, R. N. 1999. “Manufacturing gender in military cockpit design”.
In: The Social Shaping of Technology. Ed. by D. MacKenzie and
J. Wajcman. Buckingham UK; Philadelphia: McGraw Hill Educa-
tion/Open University.
Winner, L. 1980. “Do artifacts have politics?” Daedalus. 109(1): 121–136.
 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000073

References 65

Winner, L. 1989. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an
Age of High Technology. 1st. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Woelfer, J. P., A. Iverson, D. G. Hendry, B. Friedman, and B. T.
Gill. 2011. “Improving the safety of homeless young people with
mobile phones: Values, form and function”. In: Proceedings of the
2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems.
http://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979191. New York, NY, USA:
ACM. 1707–1716.
Wong, R. Y., D. K. Mulligan, E. Van Wyk, J. Pierce, and J. Chuang.
2018. “Eliciting values reflections by engaging privacy futures using
design workbooks”. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.
Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/78c2802k. Jersey
City, NJ: ACM.
Zelenko, O. and E. Felton. 2012. “Framing design and ethics”. In: Design
and Ethics: Reflections on Practice. Ed. by E. Felton, O. Zelenko,
and S. Vaughan. London and New York: Routledge. 3–9.