2006-85: JUSTICE AND HUMILITY IN TECHNOLOGY DESIGN Steven VanderLeest, Calvin College Steven H. VanderLeest is a Professor of Engineering at Calvin College. He has an M.S.E.E. from Michigan Tech. U. (1992) and Ph.D. from the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1995). He received a “Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers” Award in 2004 and 2005 and was director of a FIPSE grant “Building IT Fluency into a Liberal Arts Core Curriculum.” His research includes responsible technology and software partitioned OS. Page 11.851.1 Page © American Society for Engineering Education, 2006 Justice and Humility in Technology Design 1 Abstract Engineeringdesignrequireschoosing betweenvariousdesignalternatives,weighing eachoption basedontechnicaldesigncriteria.Broader criteriahave beensuggestedthatencompassthe cultural,historical,andphilosophicalcontextsinwhichthenewtechnology becomesembedded. Thesecriteria,calleddesignnorms,canonly beappliedeffectively by engineerswithastrong liberaleducation.This paperexaminestwodesignnormsinsomedetail.Thefirstnorm,justice, has beennotedinthe pastasanimportantcriterionfordesigndecisions,butnottosufficient depthtoprovide practicaldesigninsights.Designfor justicerequiresconsiderationofall stakeholdersof adesign.Technologicaldesignscanintrinsicallyleadtoinjustice,forexample, iftheydisrespectstakeholdersorcausediscriminatoryinequities.Thesecondnormexploredin this paper,humility,hastypically beenconsideredagoodqualityoftheengineer,butnotoften appliedtotechnology.Theimplicationsofusing humility as adesigncriterionmightinclude moreemphasisonreliability,userfeedback,andmore broadly,a recognitionofhuman limitationsandfallibility. 2 Introduction Traditionalengineering educationteachesstudentshowtousetechnical principlestomake engineeringdecisions.However,the EC2000criteriaencourage broaderengineeringeducation thatincludesnontechnical,contextualdisciplines.Unfortunatelyengineeringstudentsoftensee coursesinthehumanitiesasahurdletoget past,andreverttousingnarrowtechnicalapproaches tosolving problemsandproducingtechnology.Transferringknowledgeinonedomain(liberal arts)toanother (engineering)isdifficult. 1Oneapproachthathelpsstudents integratetheir contextual,liberalartseducationwiththeirtechnicallearningistheuseofdesignnorms.This paperexplorestwonorms,orguidelines,fortechnologydesign: justiceandhumility.We begin bylooking briefly atthe designprocessanddefiningthedesignnorminSection3.The followingsectionexploresthe parallelidea ofuse norms.Section5reviewsanumberofwaysto define justiceandconcludeswiththeapplicationof justiceasatechnologydesignnorm. Similarly,Section6applieshumility asanorm. 3 DesignNorms Whendesigninga product,theengineerworksiterativelythroughastep-by-step process: • Specification:Definethe problem.Clarifytherequirementsofthe project. • Ideation: Identifyalternativesolutionstothe problem,oftenby brainstormingavarietyof ideas. • Prioritization:Identify decisioncriteriatoratethe varioussolutions,suchascostorweight. • Decision:Applythedecisioncriteriatodecide betweenthe alternatives,oftenusing a decisionmatrix. • Implementation:Workoutthedetailsofimplementingthe chosensolution. Frequentlytheknowledgeandideas generatedduringonestepinthe processleads backto earliersteps forrefinementandmodification.Thus,thedesignprocessismoreiterativethan linear.This paperfocusesonthe prioritizationstep,wherethe engineersidentifythedecision criteria,sometimescalledthedesigncriteria.Thecriteriausedtoratethe alternativesolutions 11.851.2 Page usuallyinclude costandmayincludespeed,power,timetomarket,orreliability,forexample. Inordertosystematizethedecisionsothatthetrade-offs betweenvariousalternativesolutions areexplicitandclearlyidentified,engineersoftenuseasimpleorganizationaldevice calleda decisionmatrix.Thematrixisatablewitharowforeachalternativesolutionandacolumnfor eachdesigncriteria.Thecellsofthetable containratingsthat estimatehowwelleachalternative fulfillseachofthe criteria.Becausethecriteriaarerarelyequalinimportance,engineersuse a numerical prioritytoweighttheirratings.Thesumofthescoresina rowindicatestheoverall desirabilityofthe associatedalternative.Table1providesanexamplematrix.Thetwo alternativesolutionsare evaluatedagainstthree weighteddesigncriteria,resultinginthe selectionofthesecondalternative.Thisapproachassumesthatallthecriteriacanbe compared inalinearfashion(i.e.,thewholeisequaltothesumofits parts).Criteria thatarelessobjective, andthushardertoquantify,maynotfitthisassumptionaswell 2.Thisisimportant becausethe designnormsfallintothiscategory. Table 1: Example Design Matrix Weight: 40 25 35 Criteria: Cost Weight Timeto Total market Solution1 35 21 25 81 Solution2 30 24 32 86 ←Winner Becausethey arenottechnicalinnature,someofthemostimportantcriteriainmaking technologydecisionsare sometimesinadequately emphasized.The book Responsible Technology introduceda setoftechnologydesignnormsthatemphasizecontextualaspectsof technologytobalancemorenarrowlyfocusedtechnicalcriteria.The proposednormsinclude culturalappropriateness,stewardship,trust,opencommunication,andothers 3.Normsare guidelinesor principlesthatguide behavior–inthiscase,guidelinesforholisticdesignof technology.Unlesstheengineerrecognizesthecontextinwhichtechnology is placed,shewill notunderstandthefullimplicationsofembeddingaspecifictechnological productwitha culturalandsocietalframework.Designnormsare powerfultoolsforexplicitlyrecognizingthe contextoftechnology duringthedesignprocess.They putthedesignerintheshoesoftheuser. Furthermore,theyforcethedesignertoconsiderallstakeholdersinadesign,not justthose payingforit. Thenormsalsounderscorethenon-neutralityoftechnology.Technologyis biased–itsdesign intrinsicallysteerstheusertowardcertainusesandawayfromothers.Althoughthedesigner mayhaveone particular useinmind,thetechnologyis biasedtowardsotherusesaswell,some similartotheintendeduse,butsometimesquitedissimilarandperhapsunanticipated.Ifan engineerdoesnotforeseeanobviousconsequence ofa productthatresultsinharmtotheuser thathecouldhave prevented,hemay belegallyliableforthatharm. LangdonWinnerhasfamouslydescribedone exampleofintentional biasinthestoryofhow RobertMosesdesignedbridges overroadwaysleadingtobeachesandparksinNewYork.He selectedthe bridgeheights sothata buscouldnot passunderneath.Thiseffectivelysegregated thelowerincome blackpopulationfromreachingthe beach. 4 WhileMoses wasintentionalin 11.851.3 Page incorporatingthis bias,moreoften,thedesignerdoesnotintentionally buildinbias. Nevertheless,itisintrinsically present;thedesignercannothelp butdesignfromwithinhisown worldview–fromthe basisofhis ownhistorical,socialcontext.Evenifanengineerdoesnot intentionally biasadesigntocauseaninjustice,if shedesigns alow bridge,ignorantofthe impactonjustice,sheisstillguiltyoftechnological/socialnegligence. 4 Use Norms Inthe previous section,I suggestedthatengineers shouldconsiderdesignnorms asguides to appropriate andresponsibledesignoftechnology thattakeintoaccountall stakeholdersand recognizes broaderaccountability.Inthissection,I exploreguidelines forusersoftechnology, whichwecouldcall“usenorms.” The besttechnologyallowstheusertoparticipateinthecreative process.Tousetechnology wellistointerpretit,toextendit.Technologyshouldbetransparentenoughthattheuser understandshowitworksandcanexplorenewusesforit.Users canbe creativewithsoftware thatallowsuserextensions,suchasweb browsersthatallowandencouragethird-party plug-ins, orwithsoftware applicationsthat providescriptingormacrotools.Somechildren’stoysallow creative extensionsandexploration,suchasErector®setsor Lego®Mindstormrobotkits. Normsforuse closely parallelnormsfordesign.Choosingthetechnologytouseinsolvinga particular problemisnota passiveexercise,butis itselfadesignproblem.Forexample,wemay facethe problemofhammering anailinthewall inordertohanga picture.Aswelookaround theroomforanappropriatetool,wemightwishforahammer.Ifahammerisnotavailable,we improvise,usingarockorahard-soledshoe perhaps.Thus,wehaveidentifiedthe problem, identifiedalternativesolutions,andthenselectedthe bestsolutionamongthealternatives based onsomecriteria.Inthiscase,those criteria were perhapsimmediate availability,material propertiessuchasthehardnessofthestrikingsurface,physicalformanddimensionssothat we canholdandswingthetooleasily,andsoforth.Everyonethatusestechnologyisalsodesigning technology–particularlywhenoneimprovisesatool beyondthedesigner’santicipateduse. Ontheotherhand,perhapsitis besttolettheexpertstellusallexactlyhowtouseour technology.Somewouldarguethatitisdangerousandmaybeevenfoolhardytoletordinary peoplemodify andchangetechnology.Ifoneisnotanengineer –not anexpert –thenone shouldnot betinkeringaroundwithtechnology.Non-engineersmaynotunderstandthe implicationsofthechangestheymakeandthusmayintroducenewhazardstothemselvesand others.Theengineerwhodesignsa producthas aresponsibilitytodesignitinsuchawaythat userscannothurtthemselves,andthusmustdesignproductsthatarenot easilymodifiedor enhanced.Just asdoctorsarethe expertsindispensingmedicine andthe patientshouldnever deviatefromthedoctor’s preciseinstructionsregardingthatmedicine,sotooengineers arethe expertsindesigningtechnologyandtheusershouldneverdeviatefromtheengineer’s precise instructionsregardingthose products. However,thisistoostarkadivision.Theline betweenthe expertandthe noviceisnotsoclear andthe gap betweenthemisnotsolarge,foratleast tworeasons.First,engineersthemselvesdo notalwaysanticipate allthewaysa productmight hurttheuser.Despitetheirtechnical expertise,theysometimesmissimportantdetails,perhaps becausetheyare tooclosetothe details,or perhaps becausetheydonotempathizeenoughwiththeuser.AsThamuschides