| Title |
Developing Tools to Counteract and Prevent Suicide Bomber Incidents: A Case Study in Value Sensitive Design
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9832-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lambèr Royakkers, Marc Steen |
| Abstract |
Developers and designers make all sorts of moral decisions throughout an innovation project. In this article, we describe how teams of developers and designers engaged with ethics in the early phases of innovation based on case studies in the SUBCOP project (SUBCOP stands for 'SUicide Bomber COunteraction and Prevention'). For that purpose, Value Sensitive Design (VSD) will be used as a reference. Specifically, we focus on the following two research questions: How can researchers/developers learn about users' perspectives and values during the innovation process? and How can researchers/developers take into account these values, and related design criteria, in their decision-making during the innovation process? Based on a case study of several innovation processes in this project, we conclude the researchers/developers involved are able to do something similar to VSD (without them knowing about VSD or calling it 'VSD'), supported by relatively simple exercises in the project, e.g., meetings with potential end-users and discussions with members of the Ethical Advisory Board of the project. Furthermore, we also found-possibly somewhat counterintuitively-that a commercial, with its focus on understanding and satisfying customers' needs, can promote VSD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| Italy | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 5 | 17% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,644,287
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#443
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,233
of 422,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.