Values in Design

In this article, I examine the phenomenon of casual games and the underlying transformation of digital play which the rise of this particular segment of the games industry is exposing. I argue that instead of a genuinely new phenomenon, we are facing a change that can be more accurately characterized as “the normalization of digital play”. The expansion of the player basis as well as the instrumental and functional approaches to games concurs with the transformations of other digital environments. As digital environments have become more accessible to large populations and are increasingly part of everyday lives, the ways and means of using them are becoming multifaceted and part of wider experiences. In order to respond to the changes, I propose a framework of casual games design values. Transformation in the games cultures requires transformation in design approaches.

—The paper analyses ethical values of design concepts of V. Papanek and S. Jobs. Both design concepts represent the concepts that aim to change the human environment inventively and consciously in order to achieve the main aim. The simplicity and the absence of superfluous details are very important characteristics of both design concepts. The basis of consideration for V. Papanek's concept of design was taken from his book ―Design for the Real World‖ and his other works and projects in which he had contributed. In order to reconstruct S. Jobs' understanding of design we use the interviews, his speeches, and his presentations. The values of design are self-sacrifice, the rebellion against injustice (V. Papanek) and genuine knowledge – truth that cannot be understood by everyone (S. Jobs).

This paper investigates ‘pause’ and ‘duration’ as conceptual resources to expand current design approaches to place, technology, and experience in museums to the extended temporality of heritage practice. The author strives to understand ‘through design’ how we come to value objects, places and events through multiple and repeated interactions. In doing so, the author contributes to expand the boundaries of interaction design beyond individuals acting ‘in the moment’ (pause) to individuals and communities participating ‘across time’ (duration) in the cultural production of memory and identity.

ETHICS AND EPISTEMOLOGY OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

I – Critically Mapping Current Approaches

From an early stage, nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) have been associated with a political will to integrate upstream the question of their "ethical and societal implications". In this context, the implication of the social and human sciences (SHS) has given way to a great variety of approaches to NST ethics. After a decade of SHS involvement, it is time for an appraisal. This article seeks to critically map the different approaches of SHS involvement in NST with regard to their problematization of ethical issues and to identify their shortcomings and limitations. Especially, it is argued that concrete technoscientific NST developments and the concerns with the values that they generate should be better articulated.

II – For an object-centred approach

The ethics of nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) calls to question the division between the neutrality objects and the morality of uses. NST lead us therefore to a new kind of "Copernican revolution", taking us from a situation where the subject is the only moral being to a situation where objects fully enter in the field of moral philosophy. This article shows how the epistemological analysis of the mode of existence of nano-objects can renew the ethical issues on several singular fieldworks. The demonstration will be based on four case studies of nano-objects, conceptualized as "relational objects" : artificial molecular machines, drug nanocarriers, bio and eco-toxicology of nanoparticles, and biomarkers for personalized medicine.

ÉTHIQUE ET ÉPISTÉMOLOGIE DES NANOTECHNOLOGIES

I – Cartographie critique des approches existantes

Les nanosciences et nanotechnologies (NST) ont été placées très tôt sous le signe d’une volonté politique d’intégrer, en amont, la question de leurs « enjeux éthiques et sociétaux ». Dans ce contexte, les démarches « d’accompagnement » des technosciences par les sciences humaines et sociales (SHS) se sont multipliées, et diverses approches de l’éthique des NST ont été proposées. Après une décennie d’implication des SHS, un bilan s’impose. Cet article propose une cartographie raisonnée des différentes démarches d’accompagnement des NST par les SHS quant à leur problématisation du questionnement éthique, et en indique les insuffisances et les limites. Il soutient notamment que les développements technoscientifiques concrets des NST et les questions de valeurs qu’ils suscitent doivent être mieux articulés.

II – Pour une approche centrée sur les objets

l'éthique des nanosciences et nanotechnologies (NST) appelle à remettre en question le partage entre la neutralité des objets et la moralité des usages. Les NST nous poussent par conséquent à une sorte de nouvelle « révolution copernicienne », nous faisant passer d'une situation où le sujet est le seul être moral à une situation où les objets entrent de plain-pied dans le champ de la philosophie morale. Le présent article montre comment l'analyse épistémologique du mode d'existence des nano-objets permet de renouveler le questionnement éthique sur des terrains à chaque fois singuliers. La démonstration se fera sur la base de quatre cas concrets de nano-objets, conceptualisés comme des « objets relationnels » : les machines moléculaires artificielles, les nanovecteurs de médicament, la bio et l'éco-toxicologie des nanoparticules, et les biomarqueurs pour la médecine personnalisée.

Introduction:
Value-sensitive design (VSD) refers to a field of research addressing the inscription of values in technologies in general and information and communication technologies (ICT) in particular. In this contribution, value-sensitive design, a term originally proposed by (Friedman et al. 2006) is used as an umbrella term encompassing also similar approaches developed by other proponents, such as values in design (Knobel & Bowker 2011), values at play (Nissenbaum 2005; Flanagan et al. 2008), and disclosive computer ethics (Brey 2000, 2010).
Value-sensitive design departs from the observation that in the process of designing technologies, societal values are often unintentionally inscribed into these technologies and that resulting technologies in return may promote or demote certain values, e.g. justice, fairness or privacy. The crucial idea behind value-sensitive design as a research approach and a methodology is then to turn this insight into a research question: if values are often unconsciously imparted in the process of designing and developing technologies, can we steer this inscription more reflexively, i.e. can we intentionally embed desired values into technologies? In line with this goal of embedding desired values into technologies, proponents of value-sensitive design have developed concrete methodologies to guide the design and development of technological artefacts that promote the values desired by the various stakeholders who are or can be affected by these technologies.
Value-sensitive design, therefore, a) aims at steering technology design and development to attune to shared societal values and b) promotes the early inclusion of various direct and indirect stakeholders into the process of technology design and development. As such VSD appears to be particularly suited to support and feed into initiatives promoting more “Responsible Research and Innovation”.
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a term refers to both strategic efforts of national and international funding bodies, most notably the European Commission to better align the process and the outcomes of research and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society as well as to the academic discourse which has formed around these strategic initiatives (e.g. Grunwald 2011, Koops et al. 2015, Oftedal 2014, Owen et al. 2013a, von Schomberg 2013, Simon 2015, Stilgoe et al. 2013, Timmermans and Stahl 2013, or van den Hoven et al. 2014).
Linking RRI and value-sensitive design therefore appears only consequential: value- sensitive design can support RRI by providing a concrete methodology to both assess societal values, needs and expectations and to implement desired values into technologies. Moreover, RRI can benefit from the lessons learned in value-sensitive design as a research field, in particular with regards to the pitfalls of stakeholder inclusion and the performativity of value inscription. Accordingly, RRI as a strategy should learn from value-sensitive design as a research field and methodology (van den Hoven 2013; Simon 2016). In return, RRI can provide ample opportunity for value-sensitive design to be further applied, developed and refined in highly diverse research settings stretching beyond ICT design.

We live in a hyper-competitive world, where whole industries either shift towards services or become obsolete due to new market entrants, technologies or even social practices. A world, where permanent interactions with customers, fast time-to-market, and the ability to innovate »right« (e.g. the right thing or value) are the key to corporate success. On that score the business sphere isn't getting tired of emphasizing the need for strategic innovation (which means »creating superior customer value«, business model innovations or even the disruption and creation of new markets).

This paper uncovers some of the often overlooked links of design (design thinking, design- driven innovation and service design) to strategic innovation through the lens of »customer value«. It will do so by ...

1) Disenchanting the big corporate rhetoric on above claims by showing that prevailing and too one-sided understandings of strategy and innovation, rather reinforce than escape old industry paradigms.

2) Examining designs still undervalued contributions to strategy-making by approaching business challenges with a user/value-centric and radical service logic.

3) Showing that every dimension of strategic innovation culminates in the concept of perceived user value and meaning, which gets reviewed in detail (dimensions, forms, proper- ties), especially with regards to constructing value propositions.

4) Arguing that the current service design and business model innovation discourses cannot be negotiated separately, as they may be good methodological complements.

So when speaking about the innovation of value for the customer, the paper argues, the above stated and seemingly separated fields intersect. Therefore their most apparent systemic connections and the facilitation of value creation by design are outlined and discussed.

Valore,produzione;la stessa parola “economia testuale”suggerisce la
possibilità di rapporti interdisciplinari tra semiotici ed economisti.Si trat-
ta forse di un equivoco terminologico nato per caso,ma questo genere di
equivoci può riverlarsi fecondo, purché il ricercatore non dimentichi le
grandi differenze tra i due campi.

The Studio for Critical Making at Emily Carr University of Art and Design is a research facility that explores how humanities-based modes of critical inquiry—like the arts and ethics—can be directly applied to building more engaging information technologies and speculative objects. The lab works to replace the traditional engineering goals of efficiency, speed, or usability with more complex cultural, social, and human-oriented values. The end result is technology that is more culturally relevant, socially engaged, and personalized.

A handmade book project by Garnet Hertz in the field of critical technical practice and critically-engaged maker culture. Critical making is defined by Ratto as exploring how hands-on productive work - making - can supplement and extend critical reflection on the relations between digital technologies and society. It also can be thought of as an appeal to makers to be critically engaged with culture, history and society.

Contributors: Mitch Altman (Noisebridge), Marie Bjerede, Julian Bleecker (Nokia), Albert Borgmann (U Montana), Jonah Brucker-Cohen (Parsons), Anne Burdick (Art Center), Daniel Charny (Royal College of Art), Ginger Coons (U Toronto), Critical Engineering Working Group (Julian Oliver, Gordan Savičić, Danja Vasiliev), Chris Csikszentmihalyi (Art Center), Carl DiSalvo (Georgia Tech), Dale Dougherty (Make Magazine), Paul Dourish (UC Irvine), Rob Duarte (Florida State University), Peter Flemming (Concordia), David Forbes, Alex Galloway (NYU), Benjamin Gaulon, Reed Ghazala, Ken Gregory, Esben Hardenberg, Natalie Jeremijenko (NYU), Daniel Jolliffe (U Ottawa), Brian Kane, Denisa Kera (National University of Singapore), Leonard Koren, Stephen Kovats, Stacey Kuznetsov (Carnegie Mellon), Golan Levin (Carnegie Mellon), Silvia Lindtner (UCI), Liz Losh (UCSD), Geert Lovink (Hogeschool van Amsterdam), Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, John Maeda (RISD), Roger Malina (Leonardo / MIT Press), Michael Manalo, Matthew Manos, Richard Maxwell (CUNY), Toby Miller (UCR), Monochrom, Rebecca Niederlander, Mark Pauline (Survival Research Labs), Allison Powell (London School of Economics), Fiona Raby (Royal College of Art), Matt Ratto (University of Toronto), Real Rydaz Lowrider Bicycle Club, RideSouthLA (USC), Niklas Roy, Craig Saper, Phoebe Sengers (Cornell), Jay Silver (MIT), Scott Snibbe, Kristen Stubbs, Josh Tanenbaum (Simon Fraser), McKenzie Wark (New School), Patricia Watts, Norm White, Amanda Williams, and Kaiton Williams (Cornell).

I was curious how to witness design added value. Ideas such as “good design always creates good value” and “design adds value” support the proposition that design impacts society and contributes to the economy but do not provide reliable and evidence-based tools to demonstrate that fact.
The postdoctoral study ‘Identification system of design’s socioeconomic impact towards transformation to a knowledge-intensive economy in Latvia’ is a global–local case study that aimed to discuss added value of design by recommending indicators of perceived value that measures cultural and personal satisfaction, happiness and well-being as a result of design’s socioeconomic impact from the user’s perspective across five generations and four socioeconomic class groups. Triple design process and design maturity matrix are proposed to witness design’s added value in a framework of redefined design definition.

The challenge to locate responsibility in ever more entangled and dynamic socio-technical environments is a key concern of the ONLIFE Manifesto. This contribution focuses specifically on responsibilities in processes of knowing, a topic which is discussed under the heading of epistemic responsibility in philosophy. I argue that two perspectives regarding epistemic responsibility should be distinguished: 1) the individualistic perspective, focusing on individuals as knowers within increasingly complex and dynamic socio-technical epistemic systems and 2) the governance perspective, focusing on the question how systems and environments should be designed so that individuals can act responsibly. Different fields of research have offered valuable insights for the development of a notion of epistemic responsibility in a hyperconnected era, most notably the fields of (social) epistemology, philosophy of computing as well as feminist theory of science and technology. From those insights, two major challenges can be deduced: 1) To acknowledge the socio-technical entanglement of knowers while at the same time striving to support responsibility assumption and attribution and 2) to be attentive to power asymmetries within entangled socio-technical environments.

This article introduces knowledge of the rhetorical genre of epideictic to design. The aim is to provide designers with concepts that stimulate their ability to deliberate about design choices and explore the arguments they may be making about the human-made world. The article begins with explorations of how to perceive the situations that designers may address, then rhetorical perspectives that may be useful when creating design arguments, and finally examples of how to use these rhetorical perspectives in design. Based on analyzed examples and theories on design problems, situational perspectives, and rhetorical genres, the article concludes that designers can benefit from perceiving their design as value celebration rather than problem solving.

Heritage and Social Media explores how social media reframe our understanding and experience of heritage by opening up more participatory ways of interacting around heritage objects and concerns. Through the idea of participatory culture the book begins to explore how social media can be brought to bear on the encounter with heritage artifacts and settings and on the socially produced meanings and values that individuals and communities ascribe to them.

The tags on the book cover work when you scan the book - even the big one on the strap - if you use the Oxfam Shelflife App you can write your Shoe story on to the front of the book! Check it out: http://shelflife.oxfam.org.uk/

View on https://www.facebook.com/heritagesocialmedia for contents, photos, discount code and more!

For purchase on: http://www.amazon.com

This research addresses the perceived design value of Generation Z (Gen Z) and indicate design transformation from a result to the key method of defining problems and challenges.  The design-conception process should be articulated for the best solution, with analytically informed design-led practice moving the design paradigm and design thinking process towards design mindfulness. Deeply rooted in defining a real need or problem, this approach involves continuous mindful action in the development and reformulation of the questions why, how, and who, particularly asked by Gen Z’s.  We all are continuously bombarded with new products and services, which causes us to doubt the ongoing process towards sustainability. This study investigated Gen Z’s perceived design value through 50 open-ended, qualitative online interviews and contributes to the development of a new design theory and framework to determine the value of design and to redefine the design thinking process as perceived by Gen Z.  It proposes attributes that identify Gen Z’s perceived design values, and it articulates and systemizes these perceptions, thus contributing to improved development of products and services, including design education.  It also analyses Gen Z’s learning environment and needs in continuously changing external context.

In this paper, we describe results from fieldwork conducted at a social services site where the workers evaluate citizens' applications for food and medical assistance submitted via an e-government system. These results suggest value tensions that result - not from different stakeholders with different values - but from differences among how stakeholders enact the same shared value in practice. In the remainder of this paper, we unpack the distinct and conflicting interpretations or logics of three shared values - efficiency, access, and education. In particular, we analyze what happens when social services workers have ideas about what it means to expand access, increase efficiency, and educate the public that conflict with the logics embedded in the e-government system. By distinguishing between overarching values and specific logics, we provide an analytic framework for exploring value tensions as values are enacted in practice.

This workshop brings together scholars and practitioners of human-centered computing, requirements engineering, ethics and related fields. We will share knowledge and insights on methods to account for human values in information technology design. Through short presentations, group discussions and practical design group work, participants will collaborate on developing methodological frameworks for values in human-centered computing, and putting these methods into

Schön's model of design as a reflective conversation with the situation is one of the most important models in design research, but it is not often criticized. This paper questions Schön's vision of values by contrasting it with Dewey's vision. It presents a case study from the video game industry to show the difference between Schön's and Dewey's value system. Game designers were interviewed about their values concerning casual games. The results show that some designers have had a change of values during a project: they moved from a negative position on casual games to a positive one. In terms of Schön's fixed appreciative system, a change of values is unusual, and it risks jeopardizing the design project. But this fixedness is contradictory with the idea of conversation with the situation, and Dewey's vision of values, which is more flexible, demonstrates stronger coherence with the model.

Abstract Prior research shows that a root cause of many privacy concerns in location-sharing social media is people's desire to preserve offline relationship boundaries. Other literature recognizes lying as an everyday phenomenon that preserves such relationship boundaries by facilitating smooth social interactions. Combining these strands of research, one might hypothesize that people with a predisposition to lie would generally have lower privacy concerns since lying is a means to preserve relationship boundaries. We tested this ...

Design adds value for the benefit of the economy, people and the environment; however, reliable and comparable tools demonstrating design’s contribution to the economy and its impact on return on investment are lacking. Also, entrepreneurs are willing to apply design to improve their products and services; yet, design’s comparative advantages can neither be measured nor witnessed, except as sales profits. Furthermore, no evidence-based design identification system has been provided by design professionals or education to evaluate design’s added value. Thirty small- and medium-sized enterprises in the wood industry, producing for both the domestic market and exports from Estonia and Latvia, were questioned on how they witness design’s added value in their respective companies. The questions were based on the analysis of theory and existing online design valuation tools. The wood industry was chosen because it is one of the region’s traditional and most exported products. Export data ...

I was curious how to witness design added value. Ideas such as “good design always creates good value” and “design adds value” support the proposition that design impacts society and contributes to the economy but do not provide reliable and evidence-based tools to demonstrate that fact.
The postdoctoral study ‘Identification system of design’s socioeconomic impact towards transformation to a knowledge-intensive economy in Latvia’ is a global–local case study that aimed to discuss added value of design by recommending indicators of perceived value that measures cultural and personal satisfaction, happiness and well-being as a result of design’s socioeconomic impact from the user’s perspective across five generations and four socioeconomic class groups. Triple design process and design maturity matrix are proposed to witness design’s added value in a framework of redefined design definition.
The postdoctoral study ‘Identification system of design’s socioeconomic impact towards transformation to a knowledge-intensive economy in Latvia’ was supported by a fellowship grant from the European Regional Development Fund’s Growth and Employment Program for Latvia (1.1.1.2/VIAA/1/16/125).

As we take stock of the vulnerabilities and fragilities of the global value chain, the moral code should always triumph the efficiency code. The fact that we need to regurgitate the “people over profit” cliché in the 21st century should give us serious pause. How did we get to this point where basic human dignity is up for negotiation such as the right to take a bathroom break during work? What kind of society gets behind products that have “optimized” human desperation for cost effective pricing? At a time where the world is taking to the streets to show solidarity for the #blacklivesmatter movement, it is clear that empathy can travel across borders and beyond our lived experiences. It is not identity but justice politics that will be the fuel for future design. We need to expand our individualistic framework driving the “passion” economy to that of collective wellbeing for a COMpassion economy. Self-interest aligns with planetary interest if we recognize how our actions have re-actions across the world.

This report draws on my experience with the course of Values in Design, Malmö University 2021. I am a chemical engineer and social anthropologist with a strong interest in social aspects of science and technology. My perspective during the course has been twofold: one the one hand, to learn about practical ways to account for social impact of technological designs, and one the other hand, to contemplate on the VID method from an anthropological perspective. Since I am not a hands-on, professional designer, I have participated in the course more as an anthropologist with a keen interest to understand the complexities designers face in their effort to bring social and cultural considerations into their work. My insights presented in this report I think would be more of interest to design researchers, STS practitioners or anthropologists of technoscience.

The positive bias commonly found in online feedback systems suggests the presence of a marginalized group of users that sequester their non-positive reviews, excluding these users from participation in social discourse. To understand the barriers to participation, this paper analyzes unsolicited online forum discussions of a virtual community to identify features of an online feedback system that may act as barriers to contribution. By examining conflicts between user perceptions of values and functionality of the system, this study reveals that character limitations to reviews and restricted labeling conventions discourage users from contributing non-positive feedback.

This article introduces knowledge of the rhetorical genre of epideictic to design. The aim is to provide designers with concepts that stimulate their ability to deliberate about design choices and explore the arguments they may be making about the human-made world. The article begins with explorations of how to perceive the situations that designers may address, then rhetorical perspectives that may be useful when creating design arguments, and finally examples of how to use these rhetorical perspectives in design. Based on analyzed examples and theories on design problems, situational perspectives, and rhetorical genres, the article concludes that designers can benefit from perceiving their design as value celebration rather than problem solving.

The timebanking movement could be described as part of a wider community-based non-profit wing of the so called sharing economy. Timebank members exchange services using time credits, an alternative time-based currency that can be characterized as a double bind: it is simultaneously like money and not like money. Timebanking represents a form of civic engagement, and with the double bind quality of time credits makes for a compelling case study that allows us to think about how values and knowledge are formalized into design choices and processes; and what the future of cooperative platforms might look like.

The event on the 25th November 2015 takes place at the Senior Common Room, Royal College of Art. It is part of an AHRC-funded ‘UK-China Design Policy Network’ project, aiming to facilitate interactions between designers, researchers and policy makers in both countries through a series of workshops and events.

This is the final event where project findings will be disseminated. It is also a networking opportunity in seeking collaborative opportunities for future ventures. Three themes will be convened to include keynote speeches and panel discussions. The three themes are: International Collaboration, UK Design Policy Perspectives, and Design Value. The guest speakers include:
Tom Saunders (Nesta)
Anna Whicher (SEE)
Benjamin Brown (Design Council)
Sarah Teasley (RCA)
Mikko Koria (Alto University and LUL)
Nicolás Rebolledo (The Policy Lab, Chile)

Who should attend?
• Academics and researchers who are interested in design and innovation policy
• Trade associations, policy bodies and those who are involved in policy development and delivery in the field of design and innovation
• Postgraduate students who study and research on the topics of design, design innovation, design management and design policy
• Design practitioners who are interested in international collaboration and are involved in or interested in government’s initiatives in design and innovation
• Public and private sector organisations using design and innovation
• Anyone who has a view on any of the topics raised in the programme and is keen to be engaged with the network

For more information about the workshop and to book your place, please click
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/design-policy-network-final-event-tickets-19187599627

Look forward to seeing you on the 25th November.