=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3069/shortpaper01
|storemode=property
|title=Teaching of Technology IS Teaching of Ethics. But How?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3069/SP_01.pdf
|volume=Vol-3069
|authors=Norberto Patrignani,Iordanis Kavathatzopoulos
}}
==Teaching of Technology IS Teaching of Ethics. But How?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3069/SP_01.pdf
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Teaching of Technology IS Teaching of Ethics.
But How?
Short paper
Norberto Patrignani1 and Iordanis Kavathatzopoulos2
1
Politecnico of Torino, Torino, Italy
2
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
1
norberto.patrignani@polito.it
Abstract. Computer experts, or computer professionals, they know how a system
is made and how it works: it's time to ask how to design it, who will use it, for
what purposes? Up to the crucial question: whether to design it (or not). For
reaching this awareness they need a strong ethical competence, but how can they
reach this competence? Introducing an analysis of the stakeholders' network in
computer ethics courses for future designers can be a useful starting point.
Keywords: Computer Ethics, Teaching Ethics, Slow Tech
1 Introduction
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are now strictly intertwined with
society and are critically impacting also the environment. In the last twenty years the
importance of improving the curriculum of computer science with an ethics component
has been growing and it is now largely recognized. The question still open is: while the
technical part of the curriculum is quite easy to delineate, what is the best way for the
introduction of the "computer ethics" part, where the social and ethical implications of
the design choices are inserted? This part has now to face the enormous challenges of
the entire ICT supply chain (from design to development, manufacturing, usage,
deployment, and disposal).
The Slow Tech concept, an ICT that is good, clean and fair, could provide some
guidance in this direction (Patrignani, 2020). Also, computer professionals should be
able to "enlarge" their view by including the most important stakeholders involved in
the systems' design and deployment, being able to identify the relationships among
them and, most importantly the quality of these relationships: are they equal? Are they
based on reciprocity?
Since technology is not neutral, and technology and society co-shape each other
(Johnson, 1985), the designers of computer systems and digital services should enlarge
their view from the technical details to the social complexity around them.
This is the background of the main claim of this short paper: teaching about
technology means teaching about ethics. In the XXI century, cultivating technical
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 108
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
competences, considering science and technology as neutral, it does not make sense
anymore.
2 Teaching of technology is teaching of ethics
The refusal of the techno-determinism has been proposed since the beginning of the
XXth century (Mumford, 1934; Ellul, 1954). The dawn of computer age also was seen
as a starting point of a controversial relationship between technology and society
(Wiener, 1950). It is with Weizenbaum, a computer science professor at MIT in the
'60s, that arose the critique about the use of computer in military applications and the
risks of their abuse in any field of society (Weizenbaum, 1976). Despite these early
warnings, ICT and the digital world have been seen as an "innovation", and society was
considered always late in this race. Even the very definition of computer ethics provided
by Moor defines it as an attempt to fill a "policy vacuum" about how computer
technology should be used (Moor, 1985), but technology in itself and how it is
designed, developed, and deployed, was never questioned.
It is with the works of Johnson that the possibility of shaping technology by the
designers is introduced: technology is not neutral, technology and society co-shape each
other, and the systems should be defined as "socio-technical systems" (Johnson, 1985).
Then, an even more difficult question arises: if computer professionals can steer socio-
technical systems, what is the "right" direction?
Since then, several scholars proposed interesting approaches. Just to mention a few
of them: the "value-sensitive design" (Friedman, 1996; Nissenbaum, 1998) where
human values are inserted in the design of tools and technology to support human
"flourishing"; the "participatory design" (Nygaard, 1996; Bodker et al. 1987), where
the users, who are going to use the systems under development, participate as
codesigners in the design process); the view of design as "ethics by other means"
(Verbeek, 2011; 2017), where design is seen as an inherently moral activity and
designers are seen as technological "mediators". In line with these transparent and
cooperative view of design, the Slow Tech approach proposes to focus on the "process
of decision making" rather than on outcomes, a "philosophizing" approach to ethics.
Several studies are focused on the importance of the process of ethical decision making,
where the path that it takes to reach conclusions is more important than the conclusions
themselves (Kavathatzopoulos, 2012).
It is a form of a "proactive ethics", where designers are suggested three fundamental
questions. The first one: is (the system under development) "good"? That is: is it
designed with a human-centered approach and for "desirable" goals? The second one:
is it "clean"? That is: is it "sustainable" by minimizing the environmental impact? The
third one: is it "fair"? That is: is "ethically acceptable" and taking into account the
working conditions of all people involved alongside the entire ICT supply chain (from
mines in Africa to manufacturing places in South Asia)?
Alongside these three questions, the core question is: how can be improved the
ethical competences and skills of computer professionals and designers? The Slow
Tech approach suggests to design the stakeholders' network. This is an attempt to
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 109
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
enlarge the context of technology view and it is fruitful if used for facing a complex
case study or a real scenario. The design of the stakeholders' network means a graph
with nodes (the stakeholders) and connections (the relationships). The analysis of this
network, in particular the relationships, can be useful for the identification of potential
ethical issues, and for cultivating the "ars interrogandi" of students.
Fig. 1. A typical stakeholders' network (Patrignani, 2020).
3 Analysis of the stakeholders' network
The ICT stakeholders' network related to a digital system is a complex one. Usually it
is a value-chain that is a global network of companies and stakeholders (see Fig.1). At
the center of the network there are always three nodes: the "technology developers"
(usually ICT vendors, the ones dedicated to developing ICT), the "users", and the
"policy makers".
Then this "core" network can be enlarged by including all connected entities related
to the case under analysis or the system that is going to be developed. When there are
enough stakeholders and connections, a reflection time is required for looking at all
these relationships. The focus here is on the arcs or lines connecting the nodes (e.g. the
arc connecting the provider of an online service and the user of the service).
The fundamental question here is: what kind of relationship is there? In order to
qualify this relationship, it is necessary to analyse it in depth: is it "symmetrical"? What
kind of meanings and values are embedded in this relationship in terms of power,
dimension, role, values, and desires? In this reflection time the students, the computer
professionals (or the future systems' designers) can identify possible conflicts and
ethical dilemmas. They can look at the relationship from many points of view, at least:
the developers, the users, and the policy makers point of view.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 110
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
When comparing two entities, like the two stakeholders connected under analysis,
usually the first approach is to evaluate the "quantitative" side ("equal", "greater than",
or "minor then") but in this case can be more fruitful a "qualitative" approach. Since
the analysis of the two connected entities has the goal of identifying possible ethical
dilemmas, it is preferred to use the so called "comparative" approach used by humans'
mind when comparing two entities in general. This is also the suggested method by
psychologists and minds' researchers (Baussano, 1985).
Fig. 2. A "comparative" approach to relationships of the stakeholders' network.
With this approach, the two entities can be seen as two sets (X and Y) that in general
can exist or not and can be overlapped in several ways. In order to identify all the
possible configurations and relationships, it can be helpful to see the three instrumental
subsets: α (alpha: the intersection of the two set X and Y), δX (delta X: the part of X
non intersecting Y) and δY (the part of Y non intersecting X). It is easy to see that all
the possible kind of relationships are eight, all the configurations of three binary entities
(see Fig.2).
When alpha is zero (the four first configurations) the relationship is quite "different":
X and Y do not exist at all (000), only Y exists (001), only X exists (010), and X and Y
exist but have no relationship at all (011).
When alpha is one (the four last configurations) the relationship become interesting:
alpha=X=Y (the two stakeholders melt into the same entity: 100), alpha is X (the set Y
"dominates" X: 101), alpha is Y (the set X "dominates" Y: 110), alpha is indeed part of
X and Y (the more "equilibrated" relationship: 111). Looking at real cases, it is easy to
see the related configuration.
For example, when the two stakeholders have no relationship (011), even if they are
both present in the stakeholders' network, then this can be the case for a "remote"
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 111
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
connection, that is, there is not a direct relationship. For reaching one node from the
other there is the need to cross intermediary nodes (a user of an online service has no
direct relationship with the designer of the software, but the computer professional is
part of the company providing the service).
Also interesting is the case of the two stakeholders melt into the same entity (100),
the simple real case could be a "merge and acquisition" among two companies, or a
"one man company" providing online services to users, etc.
The two symmetrical cases where one stakeholder "dominates" the other (101, 110)
is a very common situation of a "power" relationship: one stakeholder is "stronger" than
the other and, if not regulated by some kind of "soft" or "hard" law, the relationship
risks to be unfair or with subtle ethical issues. A well-known situation like this is the
computer professional working for a large tech company.
The last case, where the relationship looks "equilibrated" (111), is indeed the most
common. Often the intersection among the two stakeholders requires further
investigations: is the relationship based on a "fair" contract? Can the two stakeholders
really exercise the theoretical autonomy? What level of reciprocity is present in the
relationship? For example, a user and an online service provider have a clear
relationship but is it reciprocal? Has the user the possibility to check what kind of
personal data and information the online company is managing? Is the online service
wrapping the user with a kind of "information bubble"? Is it monitoring the user
behavior by means of artificial intelligence applications for pushing her toward
purchasing activities or some politically interested entities (CHT, 2021)? What kind of
autonomy has the user in front of one of the "titans" of the Web?
4 Case study: the artificial retina stakeholders' network
For many researchers, the main obstacle to a deep ethical reflection around their work
is the lack of time. Most of them are enforced to publish continuously and are just
concentrated on the narrow field of science and technology they are involved with. An
example is the recent area of research around the new material called graphene. It's a
two-dimensional material with unique properties. One of the many interesting potential
new applications of graphene is as an "artificial retina", a futuristic eye implant (Choi
et al., 2017). Many young researchers are excited to this future potential application for
people with visual impairments and start a deep dive into the physical properties of the
material losing the view of the application field, of the users, policy makers, in general
they devote very little time to the relationship with society. The stakeholders' network
gives them the opportunity to enlarge their view to the very large landscape of entities
involved in the artificial retina application (Fig.3).
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 112
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
Fig. 3. Artificial retina - stakeholders' network (Patrignani, 2020).
This simple exercise enables them to dedicate time for applying the comparative
approach proposed in this short paper to the collection of relationships identified. for
example: what kind of relationship is the one between graphene technology and users?
With graphene manufacturers? With the environment? With the National Healts
Systems? Are they "equilibrated" (of the kind "111" in the comparative approach
described above) relationships?
5 Conclusions
This short paper describes a simple approach for introducing tools for analysing the
ICT stakeholders' network. This analysis is useful for reflecting on the relationships
among the stakeholders and for identifying ethical issues. In a "computer ethics" course,
this methodology, together with the Slow Tech questions (is it good, clean, and fair?)
could be helpful for improving the ethical competences and skills of future computer
professionals.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 113
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Proceedings of the Conference on Technology Ethics 2021 - Tethics 2021
References
Baussano, G. (1985). Psicanalisi in fabbrica. Bollati Boringhieri.
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), Gower Publishing.
CHT (2021). Center for Humane Technology. https://www.humanetech.com
Choi, C., Choi, M.K., Liu, S. et al. (2017). Human eyeinspired soft optoelectronic device
usinghighdensity MoS2graphene curved image sensor array. Nature Communications,
8, 1664.
Ellul, J. (1954). La technique ou l'enjeu du siècle. Armand.
Friedman, B. (1996). Value Sensitive Design. Interactions, 3(6). ACM Digital Library.
Johnson, D. (1985). Computer Ethics. Pearson.
Kavathatzopoulos, I. (2012). Assessing and acquiring ethical leadership competence. In G.P.
Prastacos, F. Wang & K.E. Soderquist (eds.), Leadership through the classics:
leadership and management in a changing world lessons from ancient eastern and
western. Springer.
Moor, J.H. (1985). What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy, 16(4), 266-275.
Mumford L. (1934). Technics and civilization. Harcourt.
Nissenbaum H. (1998). Values in the design of computer systems. Computers in Society,28(1),
38-39.
Nygaard K. (1996). Those were the days. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 8(2),
91-108.
Patrignani, N. (2020). Teaching Computer Ethics. Steps towards Slow Tech, a Good, Clean, and
Fair ICT. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Verbeek, P.P. (2011). Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of
things. University of Chicago Press.
Verbeek, P.P. (2017). Designing the morality of things: the ethics of behaviour guiding
technology. In J. van den Hoven, S. Miller & T. Pogge (eds.), Designing in ethics (78-
94), Cambridge University Press.
Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: from judgment to calculation.
Freeman.
Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings. The Riverside Press.
Copyright © 2021 for this paper by its authors. 114
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)