Ethics of technology and design ethics in socio-technical systems

Abstract

This paper addresses many of the issues deriving from both design activity itself and the introduction of technology into everyday life. Relevant authors like Papanek (1984), Thackara (2005) and Manzini (2006) warned about the risks of design activity, as well as the consequences of bringing products to the world. Papanek defined design as the second most harmful profession one can practice, while Thackara claims that design is the cause of many troubling situations in our world (Mink, 2016). Manzini advocates the imminent need for a paradigm shift towards both a more sustainable design and way of living. In , Papanek pointed out that designers have a social and moral responsibility for the consequences of their innovations (Mink, 2016). For this reason, first we cannot ignore the advice, but also, we genuinely believe that designers should include ethical principles in their education. This paper seeks to address design ethics focusing on socio-technical systems and the new challenges introduced by both the Internet of things and artificial intelligence. The methodological framework combines the developed in human computer interaction () and computer ethics with a methodology based on need, requirements and performances developed in architecture. This approach is applied to the development of connected appliances, to conduct our reflections on an applied case study. Some guidelines are drawn at the end of this paper to guide designers in achieving a greater understanding of the ethical implications involved in the design process, establishing the responsibilities and limits of the designer.

Operationalising AI ethics: barriers, enablers and next steps

“…This undermines the agency of AI developers, engineers, and designers (henceforth collectively practitioners) and slows progress from the 'what' of AI ethics (principles) to the 'how' (concrete design decisions) (Morley et al 2020a, b). Challenges to this perspective have made clear that the impact (negative or positive) of an AI system is defined by the choices made during the design process (Fiore 2020), and practitioners have, therefore, been encouraged to accept their duty of care (van de Poel and Sand 2018) to those on the receiving end of actions made by AI systems (Floridi 2016).…”

One Design Rule to Rule Them All: Towards a Universal Golden Rule for Designers of Human-Technology Interaction

“…Given the complexity of the systems designed and the large number of users they are affecting, the designer cannot generalize designs or design activities and try to follow a blueprint of design with predefined rules and characteristics, because contexts of use change, users change and the whole system and its socio-technical context changes [11]. Therefore, ethical design should be seen as an evolutionary process, and the designer should try to direct this evolution and its steps in an ethical and sustainable way [11].…”

“…There have been researchers warning about the risks of design activity and the ethical implications of design (see e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]). Furthermore, there have been calls for designers having a social and moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions [11], [12], [15].…”

Bibliometric Analysis of Ethics and Technology Research Based on Google Scholar from 1983 to 2020

“…Also, ethics of technology has been studied in socio-technical systems, which focused on investigating the role of the designer and provides a guide to the product designer. In addition, it was explained that design ethics, as far as possible, should be able to foresee future problems, while addressing current ones (6). Moreover, in the review of literature, some ethical and technological aspects of neuroscience have been studied (7).…”