Abstract
When we speak of ethics, we refer to the articulation of moral principles intended to promote societal and individual good. Derived of moral philosophy, they describe the codified process by which we determine how and why specific human conduct might be deemed right or wrong, good or bad. This is especially critical in the context of human-subjects research, where ill-considered interventions may otherwise result in harm to participants. Socio-technical studies conducted in naturalistic settings, what HCI terms ‘in the wild’ research, present some tensions with our current approaches to ethical practice. In particular, the ways in which we inform, secure and support participant consent. This chapter explores these emerging tensions and, through the voices of interviewed experts, highlights some of the issues arising around user consent and sociotechnical systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
ORBIT Responsible Research and Innovation https://www.orbit-rri.org.
- 2.
Toolkit for Learner Representatives at http://tlp.excellencegateway.org.uk/tlp/xcurricula/toolkit/.
References
Anstead, E., Flintham, M., & Benford, S. (2014). Studying MarathonLive: Consent for in-the-wild research. In Proceeding of UbiComp’14 Adjunct. ACM.
AREA Framework, EPSRC. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/area/.
Barnard-Wills, D. Privacy game. http://surveillantidentity.blogspot.co.uk/p/privacy-card-game.html.
Bohn, J., Coroama, V., Langheinrich, M., Mattern, F., & Rohs, M. (2005). Social, economic, and ethical implications of ambient intelligence and ubiquitous computing. Ambient Intelligence, 5–29.
Bonnici, C. J. (2013). An extended conceptual model of consent for information systems. In 2013 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), Seiten (pp. 149–154).
Bonnici, C. J., & Coles-Kemp, L. (2010). Principled electronic consent management: A research framework. In Proceeding of 2010 International Conference on Emerging Security Technologies (pp. 119–123). IEEE.
Brown, M. (2006). Survey article: Citizen panels and the concept of representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(2), 203–225.
Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society, 25, 193–204.
Chamberlain, A., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Jones, M., & Rogers, M. (2012). Research in the wild: Understanding ‘in the wild’ approaches to design and development. In Conference on Designing Interactive Systems 2012. ACM.
Corbie-Smith, G. (1999). The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Considerations for clinical investigation. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 317(1), 5–8.
Declaration of Helsinki. (1964). World medical association. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2001, 79. At https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf.
DeMarco, J. P. (1994). A coherence theory in ethics. Rodopi.
Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), 19–30.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press.
ESRC Framework for Research Ethics (FRE) 2010 [Updated September 2012]. (2012).
Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford University Press.
Framework for Responsible Innovation, EPSRC. http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/.
Friedman, B., Felten, E., & Millett, L. I. (2000). Informed consent online: A conceptual model and design principles. CSE Technical Report Seattle: University of Washington.
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2012). The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceeding of CHI’12, ACM.
Golembewski, M., & Selby, M. (2010). Ideation decks: A card-based design ideation tool. In Proceeding of DIS’10. ACM Press.
Harper, R. (Ed.). (2014). Trust, computing and society. Cambridge University Press.
Luger, E., & Rodden, T. (2013). An informed view on consent for ubicomp. In Proceeding of Ubicomp’13. ACM Press.
Luger, E., & Speed, S. (2014). Seeing behind closed doors. In The co-productions of data-based living (1): Mediated life: Technologies, affect, routine. RGS-IBG Annual International Conference. Royal Geographical Society (with IBG).
Luger, E., Urquhart, L., Rodden, T., & Golembewski, M. (2015). Playing the legal card: Using ideation cards to raise data protection issues within the design process. In Proceeding of CHI’15. ACM.
Manson, N., & O’Neill, O. (2007). Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge University Press.
Miller, F., & Wertheimer, A. (2010). The ethics of consent; Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.
North, S., Schnädelbach, H., Fatah gen Schieck, A., Motta, W., Ye, L., Behrens, M., & Kostopoulou, E. (2013). Tension space analysis: Exploring community requirements for networked urban screens. In Proceeding of INTERACT 2013, Cape Town, South Africa, September 2–6 (pp. 81–98).
Observatory for Responsible Research and Innovation in ICT (ORBIT). (2017). At https://www.orbit-rri.org/about/.
O’Neill, O. (2004). Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clinical Medicine, 4(3), 269–276.
Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction design gone wild: Striving for wild theory. Interactions, 18 (article 4).
The Security Cards. At http://securitycards.cs.washington.edu/index.html.
Tolmie, P., Pycock, J., Diggins, T., MacLean, A., & Karsenty, A. (2002). Unremarkable computing. In Proceeding of CHI’02 (pp. 399–406). ACM Press.
Toolkit for Learner Representatives at http://tlp.excellencegateway.org.uk/tlp/xcurricula/toolkit/.
Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Luger, E., Rodden, T. (2020). Ethics and Consent in the (Sociotechnical) Wild. In: Chamberlain, A., Crabtree, A. (eds) Into the Wild: Beyond the Design Research Lab. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18020-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18020-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18018-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18020-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)