Apologos: A Lightweight Design Method for Sociotechnical Inquiry

Luke Stark

doi:10.23919/JSC.2021.0028

Journal of Social Computing 2021, 2(4): 297-308 https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2021.0028

Open Access | Issue | Published: 30 January 2022

Apologos: A Lightweight Design Method for Sociotechnical Inquiry

Show Author's Information Hide Author's Information Luke Stark^¹(

)

1 Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University, London, N6A 0A2, Canada

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, ethics, values in design, values sensitive design (VSD), Values@Play, design methods, sociotechnical, values

Cite this article:

Stark L. Apologos: A Lightweight Design Method for Sociotechnical Inquiry. Journal of Social Computing, 2021, 2(4): 297-308. https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2021.0028

Download citation

EndNote(RIS)

BibTeX

998

Views

Downloads

Citations

Crossref

N/A

WoS

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Abstract

While scholars involved in studying the ethics and politics flowing from digital information and communication systems have sought to impact the design and deployment of digital technologies, the fast pace and iterative tempo of technical development in these contexts, and the lack of structured engagement with sociotechnical questions, have been major barriers to ensuring values are considered explicitly in the R&D process. Here I introduce Apologos, a lightweight design methodology informed by the author’s experience of the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinary collaboration between computational and social sciences over a five-year period. Apologos, which is inspired by “design apologetics”, is intended as an initial mechanism to introduce technologists to the process of considering how human values impact the digital design process.

Full text

Abstract

Full text

Outline

About this article

Apologos: A Lightweight Design Method for Sociotechnical Inquiry

Show Author's information Hide Author's Information Luke Stark^¹(

)

1 Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University, London, N6A 0A2, Canada

Abstract

Keywords: artificial intelligence, ethics, values in design, values sensitive design (VSD), Values@Play, design methods, sociotechnical, values

References(74)

L. Winner, Do artifacts have politics? in The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, L. Winner, ed. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1986, pp. 19–39.

B. Friedman and H. Nissenbaum, Bias in computer systems, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 330–347, 1996.

DOI Google Scholar

C. O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction. New York, NY, USA: Broadway Books, 2017.

A. Selbst, S. Friedler, D. Boyd, S. Venkatasubramanian, and J. Vertesi, Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems, in Proc. the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019, pp. 59–68.https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598

DOI

B. Pfaffenberger, “If I want it, it’s OK”: Usenet and the (outer) limits of free speech, The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 365–386, 1996.

DOI Google Scholar

L. Suchman, J. Blomberg, J. E. Orr, and R. Trigg, Reconstructing technologies as social practice, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 392–408, 1999.

DOI Google Scholar

B. Friedman, P. H. Kahn Jr., J. Hagman, R. L. Severson, and B. Gill, The watcher and the watched: Social judgments about privacy in a public place, Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 235–272, 2006.

DOI Google Scholar

K. Shilton, Engaging values despite neutrality, Science,Technology,&Human Values, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 247–269, 2018.

DOI Google Scholar

J. Gaboury, Becoming NULL: Queer relations in the excluded middle, Women&Performance:A Journal of Feminist Theory, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 143–158, 2018.

DOI Google Scholar

M. K. Scheuerman, E. Denton, and A. Hanna, Do datasets have politics? Disciplinary values in computer vision dataset development, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. CSCW2, pp. 1–37, 2021.https://doi.org/10.1145/3476058

DOI

R. Benjamin, Assessing risk, automating racism, Science, vol. 366, no. 6464, pp. 421–422, 2019.

DOI Google Scholar

S. U. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York, NY, USA: New York University Press, 2018.https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5

DOI

J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification, in Proc. the 1^st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 77–91.

S. Barocas and A. D. Selbst, Big data’s disparate impact, California Law Review, vol. 104, pp. 671–732, 2016.

DOI Google Scholar

A. L. Hoffmann, Data violence and how bad engineering choices can damage society, Medium, https://medium.com/s/story/data-violence-and-how-bad-engineering-choices-can-damage-society-39e44150e1d4, 2018.

A. L. Hoffmann and L. Stark, Hard feelings — inside out, Silicon Valley, and why technologizing emotion and memory is a dangerous idea, https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/hard-feelings-inside-out-silicon-valley-and-why-technologizing-emotion-and-memory-is-a-dangerous-idea, 2015.

M. M. Malik, A hierarchy of limitations in machine learning, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.05193.pdf, 2020.

M. Raghavan, S. Barocas, J. Kleinberg, and K. Levy, Mitigating bias in algorithmic employment screening: Evaluating claims and practices, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1906.09208, 2019.https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3408010

DOI

B. Fish and L. Stark, Reflexive design for fairness and other human values in formal models, in Proc. 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society, Virtual Event, USA, 2021, pp. 89–99.https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462518

DOI

V. Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York, NY, USA: St. Martin’s Press, 2018.

D. Greene, A. L. Hoffmann, and L. Stark, Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning, https://hdl.handle.net/10125/59651, 2019.https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.258

DOI

A. Rességuier and R. Rodrigues, AI ethics should not remain toothless! A call to bring back the teeth of ethics, Big Data&Society, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 205395172094254, 2020.

DOI Google Scholar

S. Mohamed, M. -T. Png, and W. Isaac, Decolonial AI: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence, Philosophy&Technology, vol. 33, pp. 659–684, 2020.

DOI Google Scholar

B. Green, The contestation of tech ethics: A sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice, Journal of Social Computing, doi: 10.23919/JSC.2021.0018.https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2021.0018

DOI

M. A. Madaio, L. Stark, J. W. Vaughan, and H. Wallach, Co-designing checklists to understand organizational challenges and opportunities around fairness in AI, in Proc. the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2020, pp. 1–14.https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376445

DOI

N. Manders-Huits and M. Zimmer, Values and pragmatic action: The challenges of introducing ethical intelligence in technical design communities, International Review of Information Ethics, pp. 1–8, 2009.

DOI Google Scholar

I. Poel, An ethical framework for evaluating experimental technology, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 667–686, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, and I. van de Poel, Design for values: An introduction, in Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design, J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, and I. van de Poel, eds. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2015, pp. 1–7.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_40

DOI

I. van de Poel, J. N. Fahlquist, N. Doorn, S. Zwart, and L. Royakkers, The problem of many hands: Climate change as an example, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 49–67, 2011.

DOI Google Scholar

S. Gürses and J. van Hoboken, Privacy after the agile turn, in Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy, J. Polonetsky, O. Tene, and E. Selinger, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 579–601.https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831960.032

DOI

E. Donahoe and M. M. Metzger, Artificial intelligence and human rights, Journal of Democracy, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 115–126, 2019.

DOI Google Scholar

Y. Stevens and A. Brandusescu, Weak privacy, weak procurement: The state of facial recognition in Canada, SSRN Electron J, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3857355.https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3857355

DOI

N. Shedroff and C. Noessel, Make It So: Interaction Design Lessons from Science Fiction. New York, NY, USA: Rosenfeld Books, 2012.https://doi.org/10.1145/2254556.2254561

DOI

B. Friedman, D. G. Hendry, and A. Borning, A survey of value sensitive design methods, Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 63–125, 2017.

DOI Google Scholar

M. Flanagan, D. C. Howe, and H. Nissenbaum, Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice, in Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, J. van den Hoven and J. Weckert, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 322–353.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498725.017

DOI

M. Flanagan and H. Nissenbaum, Values at Play in Digital Games. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2014.https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9016.001.0001

DOI

K. Shilton, Values and ethics in human-computer interaction, Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 107–171, 2018.

DOI Google Scholar

R. Y. Wong and D. K. Mulligan, Bringing design to the privacy table, in Proc. the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 2019, pp. 1–17.https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300492

DOI

A. Dunne and F. Raby, Towards a critical design: Consuming monsters: Big, perfect, infectious, http://dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/42/0, 2005.

S. Lawson, B. Kirman, C. Linehan, T. Feltwell, and L. Hopkins, Problematising upstream technology through speculative design, in Proc. the 33^rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2015, pp. 2663–2672.https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702260

DOI

M. Malik and M. M. Malik, Critical technical awakenings, Journal of Social Computing, doi: 10.23919/JSC.2021.0035.https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2021.0035

DOI

N. JafariNaimi, L. Nathan, and I. Hargraves, Values as hypotheses: Design, inquiry, and the service of values, Design Issues, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 91–104, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

C. A. L. Dantec and C. DiSalvo, Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design, Social Studies of Science, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 241–264, 2013.

DOI Google Scholar

K. M. MacQueen, N. T. Eley, M. Frick, L. R. Mingote, A. Chou, S. S. Seidel, S. Hannah, and C. Hamilton, Developing a framework for evaluating ethical outcomes of good participatory practices in TB clinical drug trials, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 203–213, 2016.

DOI Google Scholar

D. J. Mir, Y. Shvartzshnaider, and M. Latonero, It takes a village: A community based participatory framework for privacy design, presented at 2018 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), London, UK, 2018.https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSPW.2018.00022

DOI

K. Shilton, Values levers: Building ethics into design, Science,Technology,&Human Values, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 374–397, 2013.

DOI Google Scholar

E. P. S. Baumer and M. S. Silberman, When the implication isnot to design (technology), in Proc. the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, Canada, 2011, pp. 2271–2274.https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979275

DOI

B. Friedman and D. G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2019.https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001

DOI

D. D. Clark, Designing an Internet. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2018.https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11373.001.0001

DOI

D. D. Clark, The contingent internet, Daedalus, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 9–17, 2016.

DOI Google Scholar

D. D. Clark, The design philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 102–111, 1995.

DOI Google Scholar

D. D. Clark, J. Wroclawski, K. R. Sollins, and R. Braden, Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s Internet, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 462–475, 2005.

DOI Google Scholar

S. Braman, The interpenetration of technical and legal decision-making for the internet, Information,Communication&Society, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 309–324, 2010.

DOI Google Scholar

H. Abelson, G. J. Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 1996.

E. Fisher, M. O’Rourke, R. Evans, E. B. Kennedy, M. E. Gorman, and T. P. Seager, Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations, Journal of Responsible Innovation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 39–61, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

A. S. Balmer, J. Calvert, C. Marris, S. Molyneux-Hodgson, E. Frow, M. Kearnes, K. Bulpin, P. Schyfter, A. Mackenzie, and P. Martin, Taking roles in interdisciplinary collaborations: Reflections on working in Post-ELSI spaces in the UK synthetic biology community, Science and Technology Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3–25, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

F. Callard and D. Fitzgerald, Rethinking Interdisciplinarity Across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015.https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137407962

DOI

A. Quan-Haase, J. L. Suarez, and D. M. Brown, Collaborating, connecting, and clustering in the humanities, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 565–581, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

D. Fitzgerald and F. Callard, Social science and neuroscience beyond interdisciplinarity: Experimental entanglements, Theory,Culture&Society, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–32, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

F. Callard, D. Fitzgerald, and A. Woords, Interdisciplinary collaboration in action: Tracking the signal, tracing the noise, Palgrave Communications, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 15019, 2015.

DOI Google Scholar

A. Lucero, P. Dalsgaard, K. Halskov, and J. Buur, Designing with cards, in Collaboration in Creative Design, P. Markopoulos, J. -B. Martens, J. Malins, K. Coninx, and A. Liapis, eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 75–95.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_5

DOI

B. Friedman and D. G. Hendry, The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations, in Proc. the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 2012, pp. 1145–1148.https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208562

DOI

A. Fedosov, M. Kitazaki, W. Odom, and M. Langheinrich, Sharing economy design cards, in Proc. the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 2019, pp. 1–14.https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300375

DOI

J. Knapp, J. Zeratsky, and B. Kowitz, Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. New York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster, 2016.

S. Umbrello and O. Gambelin, Agile as a vehicle for values: A value sensitive design toolkit, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17064.08965/1.

C. Fiesler, Ethical considerations for research involving (speculative) public data, in Proc. the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 3, no. GROUP, pp. 1–13, 2019.https://doi.org/10.1145/3370271

DOI

R. Y. Wong and V. Khovanskaya, Speculative design in HCI: From corporate imaginations to critical orientations, in New Directions in Third Wave Human-Computer Interaction: Volume 2 – Methodologies, M. Filimowicz and V. Tzankova, eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 175–202.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73374-6_10

DOI

G. Cockton, Designing worth is worth designing, in Proc. the 4^th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, Oslo, Norway, 2006, pp. 165–174.https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182493

DOI

G. Cockton, From doing to being: Bringing emotion into interaction, Interacting with Computers, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 89–92, 2002.

DOI Google Scholar

P. Sengers, K. Boehner, S. David, and J. “Jofish” Kaye, Reflective design, in Proc. the 4^th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark, 2005, pp. 49–58.https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569

DOI

C. DiSalvo, Adversarial Design. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2012.https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8732.001.0001

DOI

M. Sloan, E. Moss, O. Awomolo, and L. Forlano, Participation is not a design fix for machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2007.02423, 2020.

L. Irani, Chasing Innovation: Making Entrepreneurial Citizens in Modern India. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2019.https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691175140.001.0001

DOI

L. Stark, D. Greene, and A. L. Hoffmann, Critical perspectives on governance mechanisms for AI/ML systems, in The Cultural Life of Machine Learning, J. Roberge and M. Castelle, eds. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, pp. 257–280.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56286-1_9

DOI

About this article

Publication history

Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 20 May 2021

Revised: 20 November 2021

Accepted: 25 November 2021

Published: 30 January 2022

Issue date: December 2021

Copyright

Rights and permissions

The articles published in this open access journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).