Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Into the Wild: Beyond the Design Research Lab pp 149–172Cite as

Ethics and Consent in the (Sociotechnical) Wild

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics ((SAPERE,volume 48))

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.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ORBIT Responsible Research and Innovation https://www.orbit-rri.org.

  2. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2006). Survey article: Citizen panels and the concept of representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(2), 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society, 25, 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRC Framework for Research Ethics (FRE) 2010 [Updated September 2012]. (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2012). The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceeding of CHI’12, ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golembewski, M., & Selby, M. (2010). Ideation decks: A card-based design ideation tool. In Proceeding of DIS’10. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, R. (Ed.). (2014). Trust, computing and society. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luger, E., & Rodden, T. (2013). An informed view on consent for ubicomp. In Proceeding of Ubicomp’13. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson, N., & O’Neill, O. (2007). Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F., & Wertheimer, A. (2010). The ethics of consent; Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction design gone wild: Striving for wild theory. Interactions, 18 (article 4).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Ewa Luger

  2. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Tom Rodden

Authors
  1. Ewa Luger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Rodden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Luger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Alan Chamberlain

  2. School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Andy Crabtree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation