Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design pp 221–250Cite as

Human Capabilities in Design for Values

A Capability Approach of “Design for Values”

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

Technology and the expansion of human capabilities are intimately related. This chapter discusses an influential philosophical framework that attaches central moral importance to human capabilities, namely, the so-called capability approach, and explains in which ways it has relevance for design. A distinction will be drawn between two different, although related, design applications of the capability approach. Firstly, in the “narrow” usage, the capability approach is seen as presenting a proper conceptualization of individual well-being, namely, in terms of the capabilities that a person has. The aim of design is then to contribute to the expansion of these capabilities, to which I refer as design for capabilities. I will discuss two challenges for design for capabilities, namely, an epistemological and an aggregation challenge. Secondly, in the “broad” usage, the capability approach is seen as a source of insight and inspiration for taking a broader range of values and concerns into account in design, most importantly agency and justice. From this perspective, so it is argued, strong parallels can be drawn with participatory design and universal design. In reality both the narrow and the broad usage of the capability approach in design should go hand in hand. The chapter ends with some reflections on the challenges ahead in making the philosophical literature on the capability approach accessible to and usable by designers.

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   499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   699.99
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.

    This section should give designers a minimal basis for the “conceptual investigation phase” of the tripartite “value sensitive design” or VSD approach developed by Friedman and her colleagues (e.g., Friedman et al. 2001; see also Chap. 2 of this book). According to the VSD approach, these conceptual investigations should be closely intertwined with empirical and technical investigations throughout the design process. In that light, it could be considered an attractive feature of the capability approach that – in addition to the philosophical literature – there also exists a large and interdisciplinary body of literature discussing its “operationalization” and presenting empirical applications. This social science literature, although not further discussed in this chapter, may be relevant for designers in two ways. Firstly, the methodologies used to evaluate well-being and social arrangements in terms of human capabilities may also be useful for the evaluation of design alternatives or final design outcomes. Secondly, the results of such empirical studies may be useful, by providing designers with relevant knowledge about (a) stakeholder views on which human capabilities are important and how they should be understood and (b) factors contributing to or inhibiting the expansion of human capabilities in concrete contexts of usage.

  2. 2.

    Both are already referred to implicitly in my article in Design Issues (Oosterlaken 2009), which talks about design that aims to expand human capabilities and also links the idea of “capability sensitive design” to participatory design and universal/inclusive design. Yet the explicit distinction made in this chapter was not made in that article.

  3. 3.

    “Narrow” should not be read as implying a value judgment. See Robeyns (2011) for an explanation of the distinction between a narrow and a broad employment of the capability approach. She contrasts the broad usage in two different ways with the narrow usage (a) taking into consideration a broader range of values versus being concerned with well-being alone and (b) focusing on the evaluation of policies and social institutions vs. focusing on the well-being of individuals. I’m using distinction (a), applied to the normative evaluation of design, so comparable to the evaluation of policies and institutions in distinction (b).

  4. 4.

    This means that there will be commonalities with some of the other chapters in this handbook, such as that on “Design for the Value of Human Well-Being,” “Design for the Values of Democracy and Justice,” and “Design for the Value of Inclusiveness.”

  5. 5.

    In philosophical terms, these capabilities are – at least to some degree – incommensurable.

  6. 6.

    It may be that increasing someone’s capability for social affiliation may turn out to be helpful as a means for expanding this person’s capability to be well nourished – yet they are both also ends in themselves and that is where the problem of trade-offs occurs.

  7. 7.

    For example, in September 2009, the thematic group “Technology & Design” was established under the umbrella of the Human Development and Capability Association (HDCA). For a review of literature that has appeared on the topic until 2011, see the introductory chapter of the edited volume “The Capability Approach, Technology and Design” (Oosterlaken 2012).

  8. 8.

    Social structures, in turn, are increasingly composed of both humans and technical artifacts, which is reflected in the phrase “socio-technical systems.”

  9. 9.

    Although it is acknowledged by capability theorists that other evaluation criteria may also play a role.

  10. 10.

    In a previous publication (Oosterlaken 2009), I called this “capability sensitive design, a variety on the term ‘value sensitive design’” (VSD). Yet VSD is a specific approach to taking values into account in design, as developed by Friedman and colleagues. This handbook uses “design for values” for the more general idea to include values in the design process, although occasional reference to the work of Friedman and colleagues is made as well.

  11. 11.

    An example may be found in Derksen (2008). She concludes that tissue engineers working on heart valves often have a limited conception of functionality and are very much focused on trying to mimic nature, while according to Derksen, they should be more concerned with the impact of the biotechnologies they develop on people’s capabilities to play sports, going through pregnancy, etc. – so the sort of “beings and doings” that people have ultimately reason to value. Derksen does, by the way, not refer to the capability approach – even though what she says seems to fit in very well with that approach.

  12. 12.

    For a more extensive discussion of the appropriate technology movement in relation to the capability approach, see Oosterlaken et al. (2012) and Fernández-Baldor et al. (2012).

  13. 13.

    What is meant by the latter is that a certain more concrete conceptualization of an abstract capability should do justice to or at least cohere with the reasons we have to consider the abstract capability to be valuable in the first place.

  14. 14.

    The distinction made here mirrors the distinction made by philosophers between positive duties of benevolence and negative duties not to harm, where the latter is in general considered to be stronger and less controversial than the former. But Van de Poel notices that “increasing or maximizing user well-being is often mentioned or assumed as goal in design.”

  15. 15.

    Reference is made here to the “tripartite methodology as proposed by Friedman et al. (2001), consisting of integrated empirical, technical, and conceptual investigations. See also the entry on value sensitive design elsewhere in this handbook.

  16. 16.

    I take this suggestion from an article by Ratan and Bailur on the capability approach and “ICT for Development” (2007).

  17. 17.

    Van de Poel (forthcoming) points out that “the relation between the different layers of a values hierarchy is not deductive. Elements at the lower levels cannot be logically deduced from higher level elements. One reason for this is that the lower levels are more concrete or specific and that formulating them requires taking into account the specific context or design project for which the values hierarchy is constructed.”

  18. 18.

    This example is inspired by an actual design project described in Kandachar et al. (2007).

  19. 19.

    Van den Hoven et al. (2012) extensively argue along these lines concerning incommensurable values and moral dilemmas more broadly.

  20. 20.

    A pilot was subsequently executed.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., the blog of Bruce Nussbaum titled “Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?” (http://www.fastcodesign.com, blog from July 7th 2010).

  22. 22.

    Zheng (2007) is speaking about applying the capability approach to the area of “ICT for Development (ICT4D),” and parallels may be drawn with applying it to design. She notes that “many of the issues unveiled by applying the capability approach are not new to e-development research.” Yet, she feels that the capability approach is “able to surface a set of key concerns systematically and coherently, on an explicit philosophical foundation,” and, “as a conceptual basis, could accommodate other theoretical perspectives in e-development,” like discourse analysis, institutional theory, social inclusion, the participative approach, local adaptation, and information culture.

  23. 23.

    For example, what is the difference between the function of an artifact and the concept of “functionings” in the capability approach? What distinguishes a capacity or skill from a capability?

  24. 24.

    Nussbaum’s list of 10 central capabilities may serve as a starting point for designers, but it has not been tested yet if and how it helps designers in their deliberations about their design project. Moreover, as discussed in section four, the list is quite abstract and applying it in design would still require quite a lot of additional work, so that “just” giving this list to designers is probably not enough.

References

  • Alkire S (2005) Why the capability approach? J Hum Dev 6(1):115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire S (2008) Using the capability approach: prospective and evaluative analyses. In: Comim F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S (eds) The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkire S (2010) Instrumental freedoms and human capabilities. In: Esquith SL, Gifford F (eds) Capabilities, power, and institutions: toward a more critical development ethics. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker WE (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blizzard JL, Klotz LE (2012) A framework for sustainable whole systems design. Des Stud 33(2012):456–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2010) Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Info Technol 12(4):277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumsen M (2011) Sustainability, ethics and technology. In: Van de Poel I, Royakkers L (eds) Ethics, technology and engineering. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan R (2001) Human dignity and human rights: thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. Des Issues 17(3):35–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh M (2009) Health care, capabilities and AI assistive technologies. Ethic Theory Moral Pract 13(2):181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh M (2011) Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies. Ethics Info Technol 13(2):81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh M (2012) “How I learned to love the robot”: capabilities, information technologies, and elderly care. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology & design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Comim F (2008) Measuring capabilities. In: Comim F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S (eds) The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Comim F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S (2008) The capability approach: concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Connell BR, Sanford JA (1999) Research implications of universal design. In: Steinfeld E, Danford GS (eds) Enabling environments: measuring the impact of environment on disability and rehabilitation. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker DA (2008) Ethics of global development: agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • den Hoven V, Jeroen G-JL, Van de Poel I (2012) Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Sci Eng Ethics 18(1):143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong A (2008) The policy of design: a capabilities approach. Des Issues 24(4):76–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Baldor Á, Hueso A, Boni A (2012) From Individuality to collectivity: the challenges for technology-oriented development projects. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Frediani AA (unknown date) Participatory methods and the capability approach. In: Briefing notes: Human Development and Capability Association. http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/Briefing_on_PM_and_CA2.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2008

  • Frediani AA, Camillo B (2012) Processes for just products: the capability space of participatory design. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B, Kahn PH, Borning A (2001) Value sensitive design: theory and methods. UW CSE technical report

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigler B-S (2008) Enacting and interpreting technology – from usage to well-being: experiences of indigenous peoples with ICTs. In: Van Slyke C (ed) Information communication technologies: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. IGI Global, Hershey

    Google Scholar 

  • Illies C, Meijers A (forthcoming) Artefacts, agency and action schemes. In: Kroes P, Verbeek P-P (eds) Technical artefacts and moral agency. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandachar P, Diehl JC, van Leeuwen G, Daalhuizen J (eds) (2007) Design of products and services for the base of the pyramid, vol 2, IDE graduation projects. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleine D (2011) The capability approach and the ‘medium of choice’: steps towards conceptualising information and communication technologies for development. Ethics Info Technol 13(2):119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleine D, Light A, Montero M-J (2012) Signifiers of the life we value? – considering human development, technologies and Fair Trade from the perspective of the capabilities approach. Info Technol Dev 18(1):42–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes P, Meijers A (eds) (2000) The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology, vol 20. JAI/Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes P, Franssen M, Van de Poel I, Ottens M (2006) Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(2006):803–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohs U (2008) Co-designing social systems by designing technical artifacts. In: Vermaas PE, Kroes P, Light A, Moore SA (eds) Philosophy and design – from engineering to architecture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson C (2010) Technology and the extension of human capabilities. J Theory Soc Behav 40(2):207–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mink A, Parmar VS, Kandachar PV (forthcoming) Responsible design and product innovation from a capability perspective. In: Van den Hoven J et al (eds) Responsible innovation. Innovative solutions for global issues, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Morelli N (2002) Designing product/service systems: a methodological exploration. Des Issues 18(3):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy C, Gardoni P (2012) Design, risk and capabilities. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan LP, Friedman B et al (2008) Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society throughout interactive system design. In: Proceedings of DIS 2008. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols C, Dong A (2012) Re-conceptualizing design through the capability approach. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology & design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieusma D (2004) Alternative design scholarship: working towards appropriate design. Des Issues 20(3):13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum MC (2000) Women and human development: the capability approach. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum MC (2011) Creating capabilities: the human development approach. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlaken I (2009) Design for development: a capability approach. Des Issues 25(4):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlaken I (2011) Inserting technology in the relational ontology of sen’s capability approach. J Hum Dev Capab 12(3):425–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlaken I (2012a) The capability approach and technology: taking stock and looking ahead. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlaken I (2012b) Inappropriate artefact, unjust design? – human diversity as a key concern in the capability approach and inclusive design. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capabililty approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterlaken I, Grimshaw DJ, Janssen P (2012) Marrying the capability approach, appropriate technology and STS: the case of podcasting devices in Zimbabwe. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Radder H (2009) Why technologies are inherently normative. In: Meijers A (ed) Handbook of the philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Reed Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratan AL, Bailur S (2007) Welfare, agency and “ICT for development”. Paper read at ICTD 2007 – proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM international conference on information and communication technologies and development, Bangelore, 15–16 Dec 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns I (2005) The capability approach – a theoretical survey. J Hum Dev 6(1):94–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns I (2006) The capability approach in practice. J Polit Philos 14(3):351–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns I (2011) The capability approach. In: Zalta EN (ed) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1983) Poor, relatively speaking. Oxf Econ Pap (New Ser) 35(2):153–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1984) Resources, values and development. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1987) On ethics and economics. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1990) Justice: means versus freedoms. Philos Public Aff 19(2):111–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklar A, Madsen S (2010) Global ergonomics: design for social impact. Ergon Des Quart Hum Factors Appl 18(4):4–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith ML, Seward C (2009) The relational ontology of Amartya Sen’s capability approach: incorporating social and individual causes. J Hum Dev Capab 10(2):213–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen M, Aarts O, Broekman C, Prins S (2011) Social networking services for older people’s well-being: an example of applying the capability approach. Paper read at 2011 HDCA conference, The Hague, 6–8 Sept 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Toboso M (2011) Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics Info Technol 13(2):107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel I (2012) Can we design for well-being? In: Brey P, Briggle A, Spence E (eds) The good life in a technological age. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel I (forthcoming) Translating values into design requirements. In: Mitchfelder D, McCarty N, Goldberg DE (eds) Philosophy and engineering: reflections on practice, principles and process. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel I (unpublished draft book chapter) Design and well-being. Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoven J (2012) Human capabilities and technology. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan D (2011) The importance of capabilities in the sustainability of information and communications technology programs: the case of remote Indigenous Australian communities. Ethics Info Technol 13(2):131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1):121–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Y (2007) Exploring the value of the capability approach for E-development. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on social implications of computers in developing countries, Sao Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Y (2009) Different spaces for e-development: what can we learn from the capability approach? Info Technol Dev 15(2):66–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Y, Stahl BC (2012) Evaluating emerging ICTs: a critical capability approach of technology. In: Oosterlaken I, Van den Hoven J (eds) The capability approach, technology and design. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler R (2010) Innovations in doing and being: capability innovations at the intersection of schumpeterian political economy and human development. J Soc Entrepren 1(2):255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler R, Karanja B, Dietsche C (forthcoming) Toilet monuments: an investigation of innovation for human development. J Hum Dev Capab (on-line first 4 July 2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been made possible by a grant from NWO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. The author would like to thank a number of people for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of this chapter: Annemarie Mink, Ibo van de Poel, Sabine Roeser, and Rafael Ziegler.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Values and Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ilse Oosterlaken

Authors
  1. Ilse Oosterlaken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilse Oosterlaken .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

  2. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

  3. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ibo van de Poel

Appendix

Appendix

Nussbaum’s 10 Central Capabilities

The complete and detailed list of central human capabilities according to Nussbaum (2002):

  1. 1.

    Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.

  2. 2.

    Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.

  3. 3.

    Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.

  4. 4.

    Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason – and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one's own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one's mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid non-beneficial pain.

  5. 5.

    Emotions . Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. Not having one’s emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety.

  6. 6.

    Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance.)

  7. 7.

    Affiliation.

    1. (a)

      Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other humans, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech.)

    2. (b)

      Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin and species.

  8. 8.

    Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.

  9. 9.

    Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.

  10. 10.

    Control over one's Environment.

    1. (a)

      Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.

    2. (b)

      Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Oosterlaken, I. (2015). Human Capabilities in Design for Values. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6969-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6970-0

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation