Open and free deliberation: A prerequisite for positive design

Asif, Zaheeruddin; Klein, Heinz K.

doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.04.003

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, we acknowledge that in the real world ethical values may collide with economic objectives, power, and other factors and we agree with Friedman et al (2006b) in that even in such situations, VSD should be able to make positive contributions by showing alternative designs that better support enduring human values. Design with a positive lens requires multiple forms of positive inquiry (Avital et al, 2006), such as an appreciative inquiry which seeks strengths from positive emotions or a deliberative inquiry which employs positive critique to unmask barriers to change and arrive at morally, ethically and pragmatically sound decisions (Asif and Klein, 2009). This paper has mainly focused on the deliberative inquiry.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Discourse Ethics to Value Sensitive Design: Pathways toward a Deliberative Future

Yetim¹

2011

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ping Zhang was the accepting Senior Editor. This article was submitted on 5/27/2010 and accepted on 3/19/2011. It was with the authors 129 days for 1 revision. Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is a comprehensive framework for advancing a value-centered research and design agenda. It provides methods for producing and evaluating a design outcome by taking human values into account. Drawing on discourse ethics, this paper first critically analyzes the status quo in VSD and identifies some gaps. These mainly concern the lack of explicit methods for supporting a deliberative and legitimate process of decision making with respect to many concerns, including the identification of stakeholders, the legitimation of common design communication, the justification of trade-offs and/or a common regulation in case of competing or incommensurable values, as well as the deliberativeness of other design decisions such as the selection of design goals and means. In addition, this paper suggests ways to move VSD toward the standards of discourse ethics by drawing on the knowledge base of critical research in the Information Systems field. In particular, the suggestions concern the inclusion of a practical method for boundary critique and different types of discourses and principles as well as discourse support methods and tools for structuring participation in a way that allows participants to deal with the plurality of values, norms, goals and means deliberatively. Finally, this paper revisits a VSD case and explores the applicability of the ideas suggested.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Discourse Ethics to Value Sensitive Design: Pathways toward a Deliberative Future

Yetim¹

2011

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The programme is not exposed to public debate and evaluation and its action is visible only for small publics. However, criticism and critical voices are essential for deliberation to come materialised (Dryzek 2000, Asif andKlein 2009). When these two elements, organisational rigidity and invisibility of the programme to the broader public are both a reality, METSO cannot become as effective and empowering structure as it has potential for.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is essential to become aware of power inequalities and actively strive for breaking the status quo that all participants often tend to maintain. In order to overcome challenges of power inequalities and tendency to maintain status quos, deliberations should be built on positive critique towards problematic issues (Asif and Klein 2009).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deliberation in cooperative networks for forest conservation

Borg

Paloniemi

2012

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we discuss cooperative networks for forest conservation from the viewpoint of deliberation. We ask how deliberative processes are produced and what predicts deliberation in the cooperative networks for forest conservation that have been established for policy implementation as a part of the Finnish forest biodiversity programme METSO. We base our argument on both qualitative and quantitative material. In the qualitative study, we present two cooperative networks for forest biodiversity conservation in Finland. The results show that clear leadership, active and determined work for common goals and openness to actively engage new actors assist in creating deliberative processes in cooperative networks. In the quantitative study, we explore the perceptions of implementers of METSO programme about the prerequisites for achievement in deliberation. The results of a quantitative study support those of a qualitative one: involving new forest owner groups and including conservation-biological knowledge were connected to perceived achievement. Based on the findings, we argue that in order to become as deliberative and empowering a programme as it has potential for, METSO needs to expose its actions to a broader public, critique and debate, involve new collaborators actively and support integration of various types of knowledge.

show abstract

“…Habermas contends that an effective public sphere is essential to a well-functioning democracy, and is a critical component to the notion of "deliberative discourse," where public deliberation among an informed citizenry is the key phase of political decision-making. While this is the most discussed aspect of deliberative discourse, the concepts of public sphere and deliberative discourse are relevant in other contexts such as an organization or a small segment of society (Asif and Klein, 2009). Research on organizational behavior has long identified the importance of "consensus" in organizational decision-making.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing Systems that Support the Blogosphere for Deliberative Discourse

Schuff¹,

Turetken²,

Asif³

2010

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zaheeruddin AsifInstitute of Business Administration Karachi zuasif@gmail.com Web 2.0 has great potential to serve as a public sphere (Habermas, 1974;Habermas, 1989) -a distributed arena of voices where all who want to do so can participate. A well-functioning public sphere is important for pluralistic decision-making at many levels, ranging from small organizations to society at large. In this paper, we analyze the capability of the blogosphere in its current form to support such a role. This analysis leads to the identification of the principal issues that prevent the blogosphere from realizing its full potential as a public sphere. Most significantly, we propose that the sheer volume of content overwhelms blog readers, forcing them to restrict themselves to only a small subset of valuable content. This ultimately reduces their level of informedness. Based on past research on managing discourse, we propose four design artifacts that would alleviate these issues: a communal repository, textual clustering, visual cues, and a participation facility for blog users. We present a prototype system, called FeedWiz, which implements several of these design artifacts. Based on this initial design, we formulate a research agenda for the creation of new tools that effectively harness the potential of the growing body of user-generated content in the blogosphere and beyond. WEB 2.0 AND THE PERILS OF SELF-PUBLISHINGWeb-based collaborative applications commonly known as "Web 2.0" (O'Reilly, 2005) have been changing the way individuals interact with each other and the public at large. These applications have changed the communication paradigm from a one-to-many to a many-to-many format. Web 2.0 , at its core, is a mechanism for self-publishing user-generated content (Cayzer, 2004), which can be in various forms ranging from online video (e.g., YouTube, Google Video, MetaCafe) to text-based content (e.g., Blogger.com, WordPress, Wikipedia). The intended audience of information shared in Web 2.0 also varies greatly, from narrowly focused content to information intended for a much broader audience. For example, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace provide mechanisms for users to share information about themselves with unique and limited networks of individuals. In addition to this kind of "narrowcasting," using Web 2.0 to broadcast to a broader audience is also common. Users of Twitter can publish brief, public "microblog" entries regarding what they are doing at any point in time. Another example is user-created posts sharing reactions to news stories on CNN.com.Within its many applications, one of the most visible and established components of Web 2.0 is the weblog (or "blog"). The term "blog" is commonly used to describe a web site where an individual (typically the owner or the "main author" of the site) or a group of individuals write about a variety of topics such as the details of their daily lives or their reactions to ongoing world events. New technologies have made it very easy for users of all skill l...

show abstract

Open and free deliberation: A prerequisite for positive design

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

Bringing Discourse Ethics to Value Sensitive Design: Pathways toward a Deliberative Future

Bringing Discourse Ethics to Value Sensitive Design: Pathways toward a Deliberative Future

Deliberation in cooperative networks for forest conservation

Designing Systems that Support the Blogosphere for Deliberative Discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About