Value Sensitive Design

From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 11:27, 13 April 2008 by Mbauwens (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

= Value Sensitive Design refers to an approach to the design of technology that accounts for human values in a principled and systematic manner throughout the design process.

A strategy against hidden Protocollary Power


"Value-Sensitive Design is primarily concerned with values that center on human well being, human dignity, justice, welfare, and human rights. Value-Sensitive Design connects the people who design systems and interfaces with the people who think about and understand the values of the stakeholders who are affected by the systems. Ultimately, Value-Sensitive Design requires that we broaden the goals and criteria for judging the quality of technological systems to include those that advance human flourishing." (


L. Jean Camp [1]:

"How is it that values such as privacy and autonomy become embedded in technical designs? How do cultural concepts of privacy, property, and propriety become assumptions about trust embedded in the coded infrastructure? Design for values theory, method, bibliography, and practitioners are described at

Design for values is a methodological approach based on a soft technological determinism, based on itterative evaluation of technology using the tools of the social science and detailed technical examination.

Above all design for values is design of technology in its social, economic, and political context. An understanding of design for values begins with the major strands of theoretical work and must include methodological approaches. on the interactions of technological development and social values.

First is technological determinism: what is technologically possible will inevitably be developed and the characteristics of the newly developed technologies will alter society as the technology is adopted. The second view is social constructed: technologies are constructed by the stakeholders, including inventors and governments, on the basis of social values. Some proponents of this view hold that users are the only critical stakeholders, that adoption is innovation and thus technology is defined by the users. The third view is that values emerge in a dynamic fashion -- while technologies have biases the way in which technologies are adopted alters the values in the technology, and thus the future design of the technology in a interactive, almost evolutionary, manner. All three theoretical frameworks support the argument that values can be embedded at any stage in the development process: invention, adoption, diffusion, and iterative improvement." (

More Information

  2. Design for Cognitive Justice



Winner, L. (1986). Do artifacts have politics? In L. Winner, The whale and the reactor (pp. 19-39). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Friedman, B. & Nissenbaum, H. (1996) Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14 (3), 330-347.

Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Technological dramas. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17 (3), 282-312.

Woolgar, S. & Pawluch, D. (1985) Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations. Social Problems, 32(2), 214-227.

Joerges, B. (1999) Do Politics Have Artefacts? Social Studies of Science, 29 (3), 411-431.

Latour, B. (2004). Which politics for which artifacts? Domus, June 04.

    • Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and Culture, 5 (1), 1-8.

Sclove, R. (1995) Technology and democracy. New York: Guilford Press.

    • Cowan, R. S. (1985). The Industrial Revolution in the Home. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman, (Eds.), The Social Shaping Of Technology: How The Refrigerator Got Its Hum (181-201). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Cowan, R. S. (1985). How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman, (Eds.), The Social Shaping Of Technology: How The Refrigerator Got Its Hum (202-218). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    • Doorly, M. (1985) A Woman's Place: Dolores Haydenon the `Grand Domestic Revolution'. In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman, (Eds.), The Social Shaping Of Technology: How The Refrigerator Got Its Hum (219-222). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

The Internet Fridge. Caslon Analytics, version January 2005.

Bijker, W.E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch. 1: Introduction (1-19) and Ch 5: The Politics of Sociotechnical Change (269-290).

Wacjman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Ch. 2 Technosicence Reconfigured (32-55) and Ch. 5 Metaphor and Materiality (102-130).

MacKenzie, D. (1990). Inventing Accuracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch. 1: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (1-26) and Epilogue: Uninventing the Bomb (424-426).

Winner, L. (1993) Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and philosophy of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.

Bowker, G. & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch.7: What a Difference a Name Makes – the Classification of Nursing Work (229-252) and Ch.10: Why Classifications Matter (319-326).

Suchman, L. (1997). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. In B. Friedman, (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 91-105). Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lansing, J.S. (1991). Priests and programmers: technologies of power in the engineered landscape of Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Introduction: The Gods of the Countryside (3-17), Ch 2: The Powers of Water (37-49) and Ch. 3: The Waters of Power (50-73).

Friedman, B., Kahn, P. and Borning, A. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. Forthcoming in P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: Foundations. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Flanagan, M., Howe, D. and Nissenbaum, H. (2005). Values in Design: Theory and Practice. (draft).

Vinck, D., (Ed.). (2003) Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Introduction (1-10), Ch.1: Socio-Technical Complexity: Redesigning a Shielding Wall (13-27) and Epilogue: Approaches to the Ethnography of Technologies (203-226).

Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Viking. File 1: Ch.1: Flow (2-11), Ch. 2: Shearing Layers (12-24) File 2: Ch. 9: The Romance of Maintenance (110-131), Ch.12 Built for Change (190-209)

    • Weber, R. C. (1999). Manufacturing gender in military cockpit design. In D. MacKenzie and J. Wajeman, (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
    • Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1992) The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W. Bijker and J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992,
    • Norman, D. (1989) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
    • Cowan, R. S. (1983). More Work For Mother: The Ironies Of Household

Technology From The Open Hearth To The Microwave. New York: Basic Books.

Mitcham, C. (1995) Ethics Into Design. In R. Buchanan and V. Margolin (Eds.). Discovering Design: Explorations in Design Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mitcham, C. (2003) In Memoriam: Ivan Illich: Critic of Professionalized Design. Design Issues 19 (4), 26-30.

Diaz, A. (2005) Through the Google Goggles: Sociopolitical Bias in Search Engine Design. Thesis, Stanford University.

Introna. L. & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matter. The Information Society, 16(3), 1-17.