skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Adapting Ethical Sensitivity as a Construct to Study Technology Design Teams

Published:13 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The design of new technologies is a cooperative task (between designers on teams, and between designers and users) with ethical import. Studying technology development teams' engagement with the ethical aspects of their work is important, but engagement with ethical issues is an unobservable construct without agreement on what observable factors comprise it. Ethical sensitivity (ES), a construct studied in medicine, accounting, and other professions, offers a framework of observable factors by operationalizing ethical engagement in workplaces into component parts. However, ES has primarily been studied as a property of individuals rather than groups and in professions outside of computing. This paper uses a corpus of 108 ES studies from 1985-2020 to adapt the framework for studies of technology design teams. From the ES corpus, we build an umbrella framework that conceptualizes ES as comprising the moment of noticing an ethical problem (recognition), the process of building understanding of the situation (particularization), and the decision about what to do (judgment). This framework makes theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of how ethics are operationalized on design teams. We find that ethical sensitivity provides useful language for studies of collaboration and communication around ethics; suggests opportunities for, and evaluations of, ethical interventions for design workplaces; and connects team members' backgrounds, educational experiences, work practices, and organizational factors to design decisions. Simultaneously, existing research in HCI and CSCW addresses the limited range of research methods currently employed in the ES literature, adding rich, contextualized data about situated and embodied ethical practice to the theory.

References

  1. [n.d.].P7000 - IEEE Draft Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns During System Design. https://standards.ieee.org/project/7000.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2019.Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2019. https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019/?utm_source=social-share&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dev-survey-2019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ishmael P. Akaah. 1989. Differences in research ethics judgments between male and female marketing professionals. 8, 5 (1989), 375--381.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00381729Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ali A Al-Kazemi and Gary Zajac. 1999. Ethics Sensitivity and Awareness Within Organizations in Kuwait: An Empirical Exploration of Espoused Theory and Theory-in-Use. (1999), 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Taghreed Alshehri, Reuben Kirkham, and Patrick Olivier. 2020. Scenario Co-Creation Cards: A Culturally Sensitive Tool for Eliciting Values.InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA, 2020-04--21)(CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376608 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Morgan G. Ames, Janet Go, Joseph 'Jofish' Kaye, and Mirjana Spasojevic. 2011. Understanding technology choices and values through social class. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (Hangzhou, China, 2011-03--19)(CSCW '11). Association for Computing Machinery, 55--64. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958834 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Eric P.S. Baumer, Timothy Berrill, Sarah C. Botwinick, Jonathan L. Gonzales, Kevin Ho, Allison Kundrik, Luke Kwon, Tim LaRowe, Chanh P.Nguyen, Fredy Ramirez, Peter Schaedler, William Ulrich, Amber Wallace, Yuchen Wan, and Benjamin Weinfeld. 2018. What Would You Do?:Design Fiction and Ethics. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork(Sanibel Island Florida USA, 2018-01-07). ACM, 244--256. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3149405 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Muriel Bebeau, J Rest, and C Yamoor. 1985. Measuring dental students' ethical sensitivity. 49 (1985), 225--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawrence Blum. 1991.Moral Perception and Particularity. www.jstor.org/stable/2381661Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mary M. Brabeck, Lauren A. Rogers, Selcuk Sirin, Jennifer Henderson, Michael Benvenuto, Monica Weaver, and Kathleen Ting. 2000. Increasing Ethical Sensitivity to Racial and Gender Intolerance in Schools: Development of the.... 10, 2 (2000), 119. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1002_02Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Stacy M. Branham, Anja Thieme, Lisa P. Nathan, Steve Harrison, Deborah Tatar, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Co-creating & identity-making in CSCW:revisiting ethics in design research. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work& social computing - CSCW Companion '14(Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 2014). ACM Press, 305--308. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556420.2558859 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Barry Brown, Alexandra Weilenmann, Donald McMillan, and Airi Lampinen. 2016. Five Provocations for Ethical HCI Research. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2016-05-07)(CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery,852--863. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858313 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Amy Bruckman. 2014. Research Ethics and HCI. In Ways of Knowing in HCI, Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). Springer, 449--468.https://doi.org/10.1007/978--1--4939-0378--8_18Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Louis L. Bucciarelli. 1994. Designing engineers. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Howard Buchan. 2014. Reidenbach and Robinís Multidimensional Ethics Scale: Testing a Second-Order Factor Model. 4, 10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.17265/2159--5542/2014.10.007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kenneth D. Butterfield, Linda Klebe Trevin, and Gary R. Weaver. 2000. Moral Awareness in Business Organizations: Influences of Issue-Related and Social Context Factors. 53, 7 (2000), 981--1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700537004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lisa Marie Byrd. 2006. Development of an Instrument to Identify the Virtues of Expert Nursing Practice: Byrds Nurses Ethical Sensitivity Test(Byrds Nest). (2006), 186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Erin A. Cech. 2014. Culture of Disengagement in Engineering Education? 39, 1 (2014), 42--72. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224391350430518Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Audrey Chia and Lim Swee Mee. 2000. The Effects of Issue Characteristics on the Recognition of Moral Issues. (2000), 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Colin M. Gray, and Jason A. Brier. 2019. Analyzing Value Discovery in Design Decisions Through Ethicography. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk, 2019-05-02)(CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300307 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. G. A. Claypool, D. F. Fetyko, and M. A. Pearson. 1990. Reactions to ethical dilemmas: A study pertaining to certified public accountants. 9, 9 (1990),699--706. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386352Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Mark Coeckelbergh. 2006. Regulation or Responsibility? Autonomy, Moral Imagination, and Engineering. (2006). https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243905285839Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Peggy Desautels. 1996.Gestalt Shifts in Moral Perception. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gestalt-Shifts-in-Moral-Perception-Desautels/6eeb71c68b09d0d39bda10e0baff0c0cb5d8efa2 Library Catalog: www.semanticscholar.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul Dourish. 2001.Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Anders Ericsson and Herbert A. Simon. 1984.Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Nermin Ersoy and Fügen Göz. 2001. The Ethical Sensitivity of Nurses in Turkey. 8, 4 (2001), 299--312. https://doi.org/10.1177/096973300100800403Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Wesley J. Erwin. 2000. Supervisor Moral Sensitivity. 40, 2 (2000), 115--127. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556--6978.2000.tb01243.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Casey Fiesler. 2019. Ethical Considerations for Research Involving (Speculative) Public Data. 3 (2019), 1--13. Issue GROUP. https://doi.org/10.1145/3370271 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Casey Fiesler, Natalie Garrett, and Nathan Beard. 2020. What Do We Teach When We Teach Tech Ethics?: A Syllabi Analysis. In Proceedings of the 51stACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(Portland OR USA, 2020-02--26). ACM, 289--295. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366825 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Casey Fiesler, Alyson Young, Tamara Peyton, Amy S. Bruckman, Mary Gray, Jeff Hancock, and Wayne Lutters. 2015. Ethics for Studying Online Sociotechnical Systems in a Big Data World. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(New York, NY, USA, 2015-02--28) (CSCW'15 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, 289--292. https://doi.org/10.1145/2685553.2685558 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Erik Fisher, Michael O'Rourke, Robert Evans, Eric B. Kennedy, Michael E. Gorman, and Thomas P. Seager. 2015. Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. 2, 1 (2015), 39--61. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kenneth R. Fleischmann, William A. Wallace, and Justin M. Grimes. 2011. Computational Modeling and Human Values: A Comparative Study of Corporate, Academic, and Government Research Labs. In2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)(2011-01). 1 --10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.123 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2012. The envisioning cards: a toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceedings ofthe SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Austin, Texas, USA, 2012-05-05) (CHI '12). Association for Computing Machinery,1145--1148. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208562 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry, and Alan Borning. 2017. A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. 11, 2 (2017), 63--125.https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000015 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. William Gaver. 2011. Making spaces: how design workbooks work. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '11(Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011). ACM Press, 1551. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979169 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. R. Stuart Geiger and David Ribes. 2011. Trace Ethnography: Following Coordination through Documentary Practices. In 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences(2011-01). 1--10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.455 ISSN: 1530--1605. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jet Gispen. [n.d.].Ethics for Designers. https://www.ethicsfordesigners.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Colin Gray, Sai Shruthi Chivukula, and Ahreum Lee. 2020. What Kind of Work Do "Asshole Designers" Create? Describing Properties of Ethical Concern on Reddit. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395486 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Colin M. Gray. 2019. Revealing Students Ethical Awareness during Problem Framing. 38, 2 (2019), 299--313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12190_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jade.12190.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Colin M. Gray and Shruthi Sai Chivukula. 2019. Ethical Mediation in UX Practice. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk, 2019-05-02)(CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1--11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300408 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Colin M. Gray, Cesur Dagli, Muruvvet Demiral-Uzan, Funda Ergulec, Verily Tan, Abdullah A. Altuwaijri, Khendum Gyabak, Megan Hilligoss, Remzi Kizilboga, Kei Tomita, and Elizabeth Boling. 2015. Judgment and Instructional Design: How ID Practitioners Work In Practice. 28, 3 (2015), 25--49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/piq.21198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Daniel Greene, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. 2019. Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A Critical Assessment of the Movement for Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.258 Accepted: 2019-01-03T00:00:45Z.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Carla L. Harenski, Olga Antonenko, Matthew S. Shane, and Kent A. Kiehl. 2008. Gender differences in neural mechanisms underlying moral sensitivity. 3, 4 (2008), 313--321. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn026 Publisher: Oxford Academic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. P Hebert, E M Meslin, E V Dunn, N Byrne, and S R Reid. 1990. Evaluating ethical sensitivity in medical students: using vignettes as an instrument. 16, 3 (1990), 141--145. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.16.3.141Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Anne Kari T Heggestad, Per Nortvedt, and Ashild Slettebo. 2013. The importance of moral sensitivity when including persons with dementia in qualitative research. 20, 1 (2013), 30--40. https://doi.org/10.1177/096973301245556419Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Jessica Hemberg and Elisabeth Bergdahl. 2020. Ethical sensitivity and perceptiveness in palliative home care through co-creation. 27, 2 (2020), 446--460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733019849464Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. David Hollingworth and Sean Valentine. 2015. The Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Ethical Context on Employees Ethical Issue Recognition and Ethical Judgments. 128, 2 (2015), 457--466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014--2088--9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Lara Houston, Steven J. Jackson, Daniela K. Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Meg Young, and Laewoo Kang. 2016. Values in Repair. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA, 2016-05-07)(CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, 1403--1414. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858470 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Hangyu Huang, Yun Ding, Honghong Wang, Kaveh Khoshnood, and Min Yang. 2018. The Ethical Sensitivity of Health Care Professionals Who Care For Patients Living With HIV Infection in Hunan, China: A Qualitative Study. 29, 2 (2018), 266--274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2017.09.001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Chuck Huff, Laura Barnard, and William Frey. 2008. Good computing: a pedagogically focused model of virtue in the practice of computing (part 1). 6, 3 (2008), 246--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Steven J. Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette. 2014. The policy knot: re-integrating policy, practice and design in cscw studies of social computing. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing(New York, NY, USA, 2014-02--15) (CSCW '14). Association for Computing Machinery, 588--602. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531674 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Abigail Z. Jacobs and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Measurement and Fairness. (2019). arXiv:1912.05511 http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05511 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Nassim Jafari Naimi, Lisa Nathan, and Ian Hargraves. 2015. Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the Service of Values. 31, 4 (2015), 91--104. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00354 Conference Name: Design Issues.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Mark Johnson. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Jennifer Jordan. 2007. Taking the First Step Toward a Moral Action: A Review of Moral Sensitivity Measurement Across Domains. 168, 3 (2007),323--359. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.3.323--360Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Rebecca Lind. 1997. Ethical Sensitivity in Viewer Evaluations of a TV News Investigative Report. 23, 4 (1997), 535--561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468--2958.1997.tb00409.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Rebecca Ann Lind and David L. Rarick. 1995. Assessing Ethical Sensitivity in Television News Viewers: A Preliminary Investigation. 10, 2 (1995), 69--82. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327728jmme1002_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Rebecca Ann Lind and David L. Rarick. 1997. Cognitive maps assess news viewer ethical sensitivity. 12, 3 (1997), 133--147. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327728jmme1203_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Rebecca Ann Lind and David L. Rarick. 1999. Viewer Sensitivity to Ethical Issues in TV Coverage of the Clinton-Flowers Scandal. 16, 2 (1999), 169--181. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198712Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Rebecca Ann Lind and Tammy Swenson-Lepper. 2013. Measuring Sensitivity to Conflicts of Interest: A Preliminary Test of Method. 19, 1 (2013), 43--62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011--9319--6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Rebecca Ann Lind, Tammy Swenson-Lepper, and David L. Rarick. 1998. Identifying patterns of ethical sensitivity in TV news viewers: An assessment of some critical viewing skills. 42, 4 (1998), 507--519. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159809364465Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Jie Liu, Binke Yuan, Yue-jia Luo, and Fang Cui. 2019. Intrinsic functional connectivity of medial prefrontal cortex predicts the individual moral bias in economic valuation partially through the moral sensitivity trait. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-019-00152--1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Ewa Luger, Lachlan Urquhart, Tom Rodden, and Michael Golembewski. 2015. Playing the Legal Card: Using Ideation Cards to Raise Data Protection Issues within the Design Process. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2015-04--18)(CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, 457--466. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702142 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Yotam Lurie and Shlomo Mark. 2016. Professional Ethics of Software Engineers: An Ethical Framework. 22, 2 (2016), 417--434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015--9665-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Kim Lutzen, Agneta Johansson, and Gun Nordstrom. 2000. Moral Sensitivity: some differences between nurses and physicians. 7, 6 (2000), 520--530. https://doi.org/10.1177/096973300000700607Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Nonna Martinov-Bennie and Rosina Mladenovic. 2015. Investigation of the Impact of an Ethical Framework and an Integrated Ethics Education on Accounting Students Ethical Sensitivity and Judgment. 127, 1 (2015), 189--203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013--2007--5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, and Danah Boyd. 2019. Owning Ethics: Corporate Logics, Silicon Valley, and the Institutionalization of Ethics. 8, 2(2019), 449--476. http://muse.jhu.edu/article/732185 Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Pascal Molenberghs, Joshua Gapp, Bei Wang, Winnifred R. Louis, and Jean Decety. 2016. Increased Moral Sensitivity for Outgroup Perpetrators Harming In group Members. 26, 1 (2016), 225--233. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu195Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Cosmin Munteanu, Heather Molyneaux, Wendy Moncur, Mario Romero, Susan O'Donnell, and John Vines. 2015. Situational Ethics: Re-thinking Approaches to Formal Ethics Requirements for Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2015-04--18)(CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, 105--114. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702481 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Liisa Myyry and Klaus Helkama. 2002. The Role of Value Priorities and Professional Ethics Training in Moral Sensitivity. 31, 1 (2002), 35--50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240120111427Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Darcia F. Narvaez. 1996. Moral Perception: A New Construct? (1996). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED398636Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Helen Nissenbaum. 2001. How computer systems embody values. 34, 3 (2001), 120--119. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.910905 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Denise M Patterson. 2001. Causal Effects of Regulatory, Organizational and Personal Factors on Ethical Sensitivity. (2001), 37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Lars Jacob Tynes Pedersen. 2009. See no evil: moral sensitivity in the formulation of business problems. 18, 4 (2009), 335--348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467--8608.2009.01567.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Robin R Radtke. 2000. The Effects of Gender and Setting on Accountants' Ethically Sensitive Decisions. (2000), 14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. R Eric Reidenbach and Donald P Robin. 1988. Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. (1988), 871--879.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. R Eric Reidenbach and Donald P Robin. 1990. Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics.(1990), 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. R Eric Reidenbach, Donald R Robin, and Lyndon Dawson. 1991. An application and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected marketing practices and marketing groups. (1991), 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. James Rest, Darcia Narvaez, Muriel J. Bebeau, and Stephen J. Thoma. 1999. Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Pages: ix, 229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. James R. Rest. 1982. A Psychologist Looks at the Teaching of Ethics. 12, 1 (1982), 29--36. https://doi.org/10.2307/3560621Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Diana Robertson, John Snarey, Opal Ousley, Keith Harenski, F. DuBois Bowman, Rick Gilkey, and Clinton Kilts. 2007. The neural processing of moral sensitivity to issues of justice and care. 45, 4 (2007), 755--766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.08.014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Mostafa Roshanzadeh, Zohreh Vanaki, and Afsaneh Sadooghiasl. 2020. Sensitivity in ethical decision-making: The experiences of nurse managers. 27, 5 (2020), 1174--1186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733019864146 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Troy D. Sadler. 2004. Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. 33, 3 (2004), 339--358.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724042000733091Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Michael K. Shaub. 1989. An empirical examination of the determinants of auditors' ethical sensitivity. (1989). http://ttu.ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/20429Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Katie Shilton. 2013. Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design. 38, 3 (2013), 374--397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912436985Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Katie Shilton. 2018. Engaging Values Despite Neutrality: Challenges and Approaches to Values Reflection during the Design of Internet Infrastructure. 43, 2 (2018), 247--269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917714869Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Katie Shilton. 2018. Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Interaction. 12, 2 (2018), 107--171. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000073 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Katie Shilton and Daniel Greene. 2019. Linking Platforms, Practices, and Developer Ethics: Levers for Privacy Discourse in Mobile Application Development. 155, 1 (2019), 131--146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017--3504--8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Katie Shilton and Jes A. Koepfler. 2013. Making space for values: communication & values levers in a virtual team. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies(New York, NY, USA, 2013-06--29) (C&T '13). Association for Computing Machinery, 110--119. https://doi.org/10.1145/2482991.2482993 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Can Simga-Mugan, Bonita A. Daly, Dilek Onkal, and Lerzan Kavut. 2005. The Influence of Nationality and Gender on Ethical Sensitivity: An Application of the Issue-Contingent Model. 57, 2 (2005), 139--159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004--4601-zGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Selcuk R. Sirin, Mary M. Brabeck, Anmol Satiani, and Lauren Rogers-Serin. [n.d.]. Validation of a Measure of Ethical Sensitivity and Examination of the Effects of Previous Multicultural and Ethics Courses on Ethical Sensitivity. 13, 3 ([n. d.]), 221--235. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1303_02Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. John R. Sparks and Shelby D. Hunt. 1998. Marketing Researcher Ethical Sensitivity: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Exploratory Investigation. 62, 2 (1998), 92--109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252163Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Lucy Suchman, Jeanette Blomberg, Julian Orr, and Randall Trigg. 1999. Reconstructing technologies as social practice. 43, 3 (1999), 392--408.https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955335 Num Pages: 17 Number: 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Tammy Swenson-Lepper. 2005. Ethical Sensitivity for Organizational Communication Issues: Examining Individual and Organizational Differences.59, 3 (2005), 205--231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005--2925-yGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Linda K. Treviño, Gary R. Weaver, and Scott J. Reynolds. 2006. Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. 32, 6 (2006), 951--990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2006. Materializing morality. 31, 3 (2006), 361 --380. http://sth.sagepub.com/content/31/3/361.abstractGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Jessica Vitak, Katie Shilton, and Zahra Ashktorab. 2016. Beyond the Belmont Principles: Ethical Challenges, Practices, and Beliefs in the Online Data Research Community. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(New York, NY, USA, 2016-02--27) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, 941--953. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820078 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Kathryn Weaver. 2007. Ethical Sensitivity: State of Knowledge and Needs for Further Research. 14, 2 (2007), 141--155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007073694Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Kathryn Weaver, Janice Morse, and Carl Mitcham. 2008. Ethical sensitivity in professional practice: concept analysis. 62, 5 (2008), 607--618.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365--2648.2008.04625.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Kathryn Weaver and Janice M. Morse. 2006. Pragmatic utility: using analytical questions to explore the concept of ethical sensitivity. 20, 3 (2006),191--214. https://doi.org/10.1891/rtnp.20.3.191Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Dennis Wittmer. 1992. Ethical Sensitivity and Managerial Decision making: An Experiment. 2, 4 (1992), 443--462. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037147Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Dennis P. Wittmer. 2000. Ethical Sensitivity in Management Decisions: Developing and Testing a Perceptual Measure Among Management and Professional Student Groups. 4, 2 (2000), 181--205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009866315139Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Richmond Y. Wong, Deirdre K. Mulligan, Ellen Van Wyk, James Pierce, and John Chuang. 2017. Eliciting Values Reflections by Engaging Privacy Futures Using Design Workbooks. 1 (2017), 111:1--111:26. Issue CSCW. https://doi.org/10.1145/313474621 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Scott A Yetmar and Kenneth K Eastman. 2000. Tax Practitioners' Ethical Sensitivity: A Model and Empirical Examination. (2000), 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Doug Zytko, Jessa Lingel, Jeremy Birnholtz, Nicole B. Ellison, and Jeff Hancock. 2015. Online Dating as Pandora's Box: Methodological Issues for the CSCW Community. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(New York, NY, USA, 2015-02--28)(CSCW'15 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, 131--134. https://doi.org/10.1145/2685553.2699335 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Adapting Ethical Sensitivity as a Construct to Study Technology Design Teams

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 5, Issue GROUP
      GROUP
      July 2021
      190 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3475950
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 July 2021
      Published in pacmhci Volume 5, Issue GROUP

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!