Advertisement

Designing Technologies with Older Adults: Ethical Tensions and Opportunities

  • Jenny WaycottEmail author
  • John Vines
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we reflect on our experiences of designing and evaluating new technologies with older adults. We describe encounters from two projects that have prompted us to reconsider our research in two ways. First, we highlight ethical tensions: situations where we have had to adapt our research approach to account for unexpected ethical challenges that emerged in specific situations with older participants. Second, we note how collaborating with older adults brings a wealth of ethical opportunities: older participants often challenge simplistic technological solutions to complex problems and help us question and critique the values and ethics embedded in the technologies we set out to design. We argue that researchers working in this space need flexibility in the way research ethics is approved and managed, and need to be supported in recognising and responding to ethical encounters during the conduct of research. Meanwhile, researchers developing technologies for older users have an ethical imperative to engage older adults in the design and evaluation of new technologies. This, again, requires flexibility: researchers need to be able to thoughtfully respond to emergent issues in order to empower older adults to shape the direction of the research and to critique and iterate proposed designs.

Keywords

Research ethics Collaborative design Older adults Oldest old Fieldwork 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here involved the two authors working in multiple collaborations with many great people. In particular, we wish to thank Mark Blythe, Andrew Monk, Paul Dunphy, Roisin McNaney, Patrick Olivier, Frank Vetere, Elizabeth Ozanne, Sonja Pedell, Lars Kulik, John Downs, Alan Gruner and Amee Morgans. The main projects described were funded by a range of sources, including the EPSRC funded “New Approaches to Banking for the Older Old” project (EP/H042911/1) and the Australian Research Council funded “Growing Old, Staying Connected: Touch-screen Technologies for Ameliorating Older People’s Experience of Social Isolation” (LP120100022). As always, we would like to thank our participants for their time, commitment and help with all our projects.

References

  1. Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M., & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A Utopian experience. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.Google Scholar
  2. Briggs, P., Blythe, M., Vines, J., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Nicholson, J., … & Olivier, P. (2012). Invisible design: Exploring insights and ideas through ambiguous film scenarios. In Proceedings of DIS ‘12 (pp. 534–543). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Coleman, G., Gibson, L., Hanson, V., Bobrowicz, A., & McKay, A. (2010). Engaging the disengaged: How do we design technology for digitally excluded older adults? In Proceedings of DIS ‘10 (pp. 175–178). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 31–48.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650905000103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., & Liamputton, P. (2008). Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences: Managing boundaries, emotions and risks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frauenberger, C., Rauhala, M., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2017). In-action ethics. Interacting with Computers, 29(2), 220–236.Google Scholar
  7. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leong, T., & Robertson, T. (2016). Voicing values: Laying foundations for ageing people to participate in design. In Proceedings of PDC ‘16 (pp. 31–40). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Light, A., Howland, K., Hamilton, T., & Harley, D. (2017). The meaning of place in supporting sociality. In Proceedings of DIS ‘17 (pp. 1141–1152). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Light, A., Simpson, G., Weaver, L., & Healey, P. (2009). Geezers, turbines, fantasy personas: Making the everyday into the future. In Proceedings of C&C ‘09 (pp. 39–48). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Lindsay, S., Jackson, D., Schofield, G., & Olivier, P. (2012). Engaging older people using participatory design. In: Proceedings of CHI ‘12 (pp. 1199–1208). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Locher, J. L., Bronstein, J., Robinson, C. O., Williams, C., & Ritchie, C. S. (2006). Ethical issues involving research conducted with homebound older adults. The Gerontologist, 46(2), 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mattila, M., Karjaluoto, H., & Pento, T. (2003). Internet banking adoption among mature customers: Early majority or laggards? Journal of Services Marketing, 17(5), 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Munteanu, C., Molyneaux, H., Moncur, W., Romero, M., O’Donnell, S., & Vines, J. (2015). Situational ethics: Re-thinking approaches to formal ethics requirements for human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of CHI 2015 (pp. 105–114). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. Robertson, T., & Wagner, I. (2013). Ethics: Engagement, representation and politics-in-action. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 64–85). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Rogers, Y., Paay, J, Brereton, M., Vaisutis, K., Marsden, G., & Vetere, F. (2014). Never too old: Engaging retired people inventing the future with MaKey. In Proceedings of CHI ‘14 (pp. 3913–3922). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  17. Russell, C. (1999). Interviewing vulnerable old people: Ethical and methodological implications of imagining our subjects. Journal of Ageing Studies, 13(4), 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slegers, K., Duysburgh, P., & Hendriks, N. (2015). Ethical issues in participatory design with people living with cognitive or sensory impairments. Paper presented at the CHI 2015 workshop on ethical encounters in HCI.Google Scholar
  19. Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P., & Wardle, J. (2013). Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thieme, A., Vines, J., Wallace, J., Clarke, R., Slovak, P., McCarthy, J., … & Parker, A. G. (2014). Enabling empathy in health and care: Design methods and challenges. In Extended Abstracts CHI 2014 (pp. 139–142). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. Vines, J., Blythe, M., Dunphy, P., & Monk, A. (2011). Eighty something: Banking for the older old. In Proceedings of BCS-HCI ‘11 (pp. 64–73). Swinton, UK: British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  22. Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., & Olivier, P. (2012a). Questionable concepts: Critique as a resource for designing with eighty somethings. In Proceedings of CHI 2012 (pp. 1169–1178). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  23. Vines, J., Denman-Cleaver, T., Dunphy, P., Wright, P., & Olivier, P. (2014). Experience design theatre: Exploring the role of live theatre in scaffolding design dialogues. In Proceedings of CHI 2014 (pp. 683–692). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  24. Vines, J., Dunphy, P., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Monk, A., & Olivier, P. (2012b). The joy of cheques: Trust, paper and eighty somethings. In Proceedings of CSCW ‘12 (pp. 147–156). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Vines, J., McNaney, R., Holden, A., Poliakov, I., Wright, P., & Olivier, P. (2017). Our year with the glass: Expectations, letdowns and ethical dilemmas of technology trials with vulnerable people. Interacting with Computers, 29(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vines, J., Pritchard, G., Wright, P., Olivier, P., & Brittain, K. (2015). An age-old problem: Examining the discourses of ageing in HCI and strategies for future research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 22(1), 27 (Article 2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waycott, J., Morgans, A., Pedell, S., Ozanne, E., Vetere, F., Kulik, L., et al. (2015a). Ethics in evaluating a sociotechnical intervention with socially isolated older adults. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1518–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Waycott, J., Vetere, F., Pedell, S., Kulik, L., Ozanne, E., Gruner, A., & Downs, J. (2013). Older adults as digital content producers. In CHI 2013: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 39–48). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  29. Waycott, J., Vetere, F., Pedell, S., Morgans, A., Ozanne, E., & Kulik, L. (2016). Not for me: Older adults choosing not to participate in a social isolation intervention. In CHI 2016: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 745–757). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Waycott, J., Wadley, G., Schutt, S., Stabolidis, A., & Lederman, R. (2015b). The challenge of technology research in sensitive settings: Case studies in ‘sensitive HCI’. In OzCHI ’15: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (pp. 240–249). ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Northumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations