Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice

Information Technology and Moral Philosophy

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 322-353

  Flanagan, Mary ^a   Howe, Daniel C ^b   Nissenbaum, Helen ^c  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928413409     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511498725.017     Document Type: Chapter

References (63)

1. Ackerman, M. S., and Cranor, L. 1999. Privacy critics: UI components to safeguard users’ privacy. Extended Abstracts of CHI. New York: ACM Press, pp. 258–259.
2. Agre, P. E. 1997a. Introduction, in P. E. Agre and M. Rotenberg (Eds.), Technology and privacy: The new landscape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–28.
3. Agre, P. E. 1997b. Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI, in G. Bowker et al. (Eds.), Bridging the great divide: Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. American Association of University Women (AAUW). 2000. Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Available at http://www.aauw.org/research/girls education/techsavvy.cfm.
5. Bødker, S., and Grønbæk, K. 1991. Design in action: From prototyping by demonstration to cooperative prototyping, in J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 197–218.
6. Borning, A. Friedman, B., and Kahn, P. 2004. Designing for human values in an urban simulation system: Value sensitive design and participatory design. Proceedings of Eighth Biennial Participatory Design Conference, Toronto. Toronto: ACM Press, pp. 64–67.
7. Brunner, C. 1997. Opening technology to girls: The approach computer-using teachers take may make the difference. Electronic Learning, 16, 4, 55.
8. Catsambis, S. 1994. The path to math: Gender and racial-ethnic differences in mathematics participation from middle to high school. Sociology of Education, 67, 3, 199–215.
9. Chaika, M. 1995. Ethical considerations in gender-oriented entertainment technology. Crossroads of the ACM, 2, 2, 11–13. Available at http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds2–2/gender.html.
10. Chmielewski, D. C. 2004. Kids turning to instant messaging. Knight Ridder. Available at http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0225faminstantmessage.html.
11. Clewell, B. 2002. Breaking the barriers: The critical middle school years, in The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 301–313.
12. Crawford, C. 1982. The art of computer game design. Available at http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html.
13. Dourish, P., Finlay, J., Sengers, P., and Wright, P. 2004. Reflective HCI: Towards a critical technical practice. Proceedings of CHI, Vienna, pp. 1727–1728.
14. Druin, A. 1999. Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children. Proceedings of CHI, Pittsburgh, pp. 592–599.
15. Eysenbach, G., and Kohler, C. 2002. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? British Medical Journal, 324, 7337, p. 9.
16. Flanagan, M. 2003. Next level:Women’s digital activism through gaming, in A. Morrison, G. Liestøl, and T. Rasmussen (Eds.), Digital media revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 359–388.
17. Flanagan, M., Hollingshead, A., and Perlin, K. 2003. HRD-0332898, Gender in Science and Engineering Program (GSE) of the National Science Foundation.
18. Freeman-Benson, B., and Borning, A. 2003. YP and urban simulation: Applying an agile programming methodology in a politically tempestuous domain. Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference (ADC “03), p. 2.
19. Friedman, B. 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3, 6, 17–23.
20. Friedman, B., Howe, D. C., and Felten, E. 2002. Informed consent in the Mozilla browser: Implementing value-sensitive design. Proceedings of 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, 8, p. 247.
21. Friedman, B., and Nissenbaum, H. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14, 3, 330–347.
22. Glass, R. L. 2000. Facts and fallacies of software engineering. Lebanon, PA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
23. Gorriz, C., and Medina, C. 2000. Engaging girls with computers through software games. Communications of the ACM, 43, 1, 42–49.
24. Grinter, R., and Palen, L. 2002. Instant messaging in teen life. Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, pp. 21–30.
25. Haller, S., and Fossum, T. 1998. Retaining women in CS with accessible role models. Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. Also published in ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30, 1, 73–76.
26. Hornof, A. J., and Halverson, T. 2003. Cognitive strategies and eye movements for searching hierarchical computer displays. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 5-10, pp. 249-256.
27. Hughes, T. 2004. Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Klawe, M., and Upitis, R. 1995. Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 177–181.
29. Kafai, Y. B. 1995. Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Kafai, Y. B. 1998. Video game designs by girls and boys: Variability and consistency of gender differences, in J. Cassel and H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 90–114.
31. Kirkup, G., and Abbot, J. 1997. The gender gap: A gender analysis of the 1996 computing access survey (PLUM Paper 80). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
32. Kline, R., and Pinch, T. 1996. Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture,37, 4, 763–795.
33. Latour, B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts, in W. Bijker and J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 225–258.
34. Laurel, B. 2001. The Utopian entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. MacKenzie, D., and Wajcman, J. 1985. The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
36. Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: The Carnegie Mellon experience. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34, 2, 79–83.
37. Mateas, M. 2000. Expressive AI, in Electronic Art and Animation Catalog, Art and Culture Papers, SigGraph 2000, New Orleans, LA.
38. Mitcham, C. 1995. Ethics into design, in R. Buchanan and V. Margolis, (Eds.), Discovering design. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 173–179.
39. Moor, J. H. 1999. Just consequentialism and computing. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 1, 65–69.
40. Mubireek, K. A. 2003. Gender-oriented vs. gender-neutral computer games in education. PhD dissertation, Educational Policy and Leadership, Ohio State University. Available at http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?osu1056139090.
41. Muller, M. J., and Kuhn, S. 1993. Communications of the ACM, 36, 6. Special issue on participatory design.
42. Nissenbaum, H. 1998. Values in the design of computer systems. Computers in Society, March, 38–39.
43. Nissenbaum, H. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79, 1,119–158.
44. Norman, D. 1990. The design of everyday things. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
45. Norman, D. A., and Draper, S. W. 1986. User-centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Papert, S. 1993. The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
47. Papert, S. 2005. The challenges of IDC: What have we learned from our past? A conversation with Seymour Papert, Marvin Minsky, and Alan Kay Communications of the ACM, 48, 1, 35–38.
48. Pearl, A., Pollock, M., Riskin, E., Thomas, B., Wolf, E., and Wu, A. 1990. Becoming a computer scientist. Communications of the ACM, 33, 11, 47–57.
49. Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. Technological dramas. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 17, 3, 282–312.
50. Pinch, T. J., and Bijker, W. E. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts, or, How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, in W. E. Bijker, T. J. Pinch, and T. P. Hughes (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 17–50.
51. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
52. Rettig, M. 1994. Prototyping for tiny fingers. Communications of the ACM, 37, 4, 21–27.
53. Richardson, H. S. 1994. Practical reasoning about final ends. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Sch¨on, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
55. Shneiderman, B. 2000. Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43, 3, 84–91.
56. Taylor, T. L., and Jakobsson, M. 2003. The Sopranos Meets EverQuest: Socialization processes in massively multiuser games. Paper presented at the 5th International Digital Arts and Culture Conference, Melbourne, May 19–23. Available at http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Jakobsson.pdf.
57. Von Prummer, C. 1994. Women-friendly perspectives in distance education. Open Learning, 9, 1, 3–12.
58. Walzer, M. 1984. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.
59. Whitbeck, C. 1996. Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems. Hastings Center Report, 26, 3, 9–16.
60. Wilson, E. O. 1986. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Winner, L. 1986. Do artifacts have politics? in The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–39.
62. Woolgar, S. 1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16, 1, 20–50.
63. Zimmerman, E. 2003. Play as research: the iterative design process. Game Lab. Available at http://www.gmlb.com/articles/iterativedesign.html.