Value Operationalizatoin; From Abstract & General Values to Concrete & Specific Design Requirements
0 likes4,351 views
The document discusses the importance of operationalizing values in design to ensure effectiveness and avoid disagreements. It outlines methods for translating abstract values into specific design requirements, emphasizing the need for clear specification and measurable attributes. Key concepts include the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values, the contextual nature of value specification, and quality criteria for good operationalization.
![8
Definitions of value
• “what a person or a group of people
consider important in life” (Friedman,
Kahn, and Borning 2006: 349).
• “[v]alues are (a) concepts or beliefs, (b)
about desirable end states or behaviors,
(c) that transcend specific situations, (d)
guide selection or evaluation of behavior
and events, and (e) are ordered by
relative importance.” (Schwartz and
Bilsky 1987: 551)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lecture-ibo-van-de-poel-on-value-operationalization-181207153122/85/Value-Operationalizatoin-From-Abstract-General-Values-to-Concrete-Specific-Design-Requirements-8-320.jpg)
Value Operationalizatoin; From Abstract & General Values to Concrete & Specific Design Requirements
- 1. 1 Value Operationalisation Ibo van de Poel, 4 December 2018, Delft University of Technology From Abstract & General Values to Concrete & Specific Design Requirements
- 2. 2 Part of the DDfV Fundamentals Series A lecture series of the Delft Design for Values Institute http://designforvalues.tudelft.nl/ddfv-fundamentals-series/
- 3. 3 Why is it important to operationalise values? • Values are usually abstract and general – May lead to window-dressing – May lead to disagreement at a very general level • They need to be operationalised in order to – Be effective in design – Assess whether design options meet certain values
- 4. 4 What is value operationalisation? I will distinguish: • Translating values into design requirements: specification • Making values measurable to assess (design) options: operationalisation
- 5. 5 Are there methods for value operationalisation? • I will discuss approaches but they do not provide straightforward methods • Often there is not “one best way” • Nevertheless: quality criteria for good specification and operationalisation can be formulated
- 6. 6 Overview • What are values? • Conceptualisation of values • Specification of values • Operationalisation of values
- 8. 8 Definitions of value • “what a person or a group of people consider important in life” (Friedman, Kahn, and Borning 2006: 349). • “[v]alues are (a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about desirable end states or behaviors, (c) that transcend specific situations, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (e) are ordered by relative importance.” (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987: 551)
- 9. 9 Philosophical definitions • Values refer to what is good • They may be seen as varieties of goodness (von Wright 1963).
- 10. 10 Evaluative versus deontic judgements • Evaluative statements evaluate state-of- affairs in terms of goodness • Deontic statements are about the rightness of certain actions • Values are used in evaluative statements not (directly) in deontic statements
- 11. 11 Evaluative versus deontic Evaluative Deontic State-of-affairs Actions Goodness Rightness Values Norms, reasons, ‘oughts’ Evaluative state-of-affairs in terms of goodness Prescribe, forbid, allow, recommend (etc.) certain actions
- 12. 12 Correspondence between values and reasons V: If x is valuable or is a value one has reasons for a positive response (a pro- attitude or a pro-behavior) towards x
- 13. 13 For example • Beauty of sunset – Admire • Beauty of building (still to be built) – Increase beauty of design
- 14. 14 Values: evaluative and deontic • Values can be used to evaluate state-of- affairs • They are not directly action-guiding – But can be associated with deontic statements (norms, reasons, ought) via (V)
- 16. 16 Conceptualization the providing of a definition, analysis or description of a value that clarifies its meaning and its applicability in general
- 17. 17 Relation with operationalisation Conceptualisation is often the first step in both specification and operationalisation of values Conceptualisation is largely (but not completely) context-independent
- 18. 18 Some examples • Well-being • Sustainability • Privacy
- 19. 19 Three philosophical theories of well- being • Pleasurable experience (hedonism) – Problem: experience machine • Desire satisfaction – Problem: not everything people desire contributes to their well-being • Objective list accounts (list of general prudential values) – Problem: How to account for reasonable differences between people?
- 20. 20 Design approaches • Pleasurable experience – Design for experience • Desire satisfaction – Quality Function deployment (QFD) • Objective list accounts – Value Sensitive Design (VSD)
- 21. 21 Sustainability “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: • the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which over-riding priority should be given; and • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987)
- 22. 22 A broad conception of sustainability Three key values: • Intergenerational justice • Intragenerational justice • Care for nature • Sustainability as a composed value
- 23. 23 Sustainability “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: • the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which over-riding priority should be given; and • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987)
- 24. 24 Privacy • As confidentiality – Personal data are to be kept secret/confidential • As control – People should be able to control what data about them are collected and shared with whom (‘informed consent’)
- 25. 25 Quality criteria A good conceptualization: • Is coherent (at least ‘no inconsistencies’) • Explains why a value is valuable • Relates the value to other values and other normative concepts (norms, reasons) • Makes clear in what types of situations a value is relevant
- 26. 26 Context • Conceptualisation is largely context- independent • But still in some context some conceptualisations of a value may be more appropriate than others – E.g. privacy conceptualised in informational terms (‘informational privacy’)
- 28. 28 Specification makes a value more specific so that it can guide action and decisions in a specific context
- 30. 30 Design requirements Norms Values Animal welfare Enough living space at least 450 cm2 floor area per hen 10 cm feeding trough per bird 40 cm height over at least 65% of the area floor-slope of maximally 14% Presence of laying nests Litter Perches Example of values hierarchy
- 31. 31 Constructing a values hierarchy • Can be done top-down and bottom-up • Usually combination and iterative process • Top-down: specification • Bottom-up: for the sake of
- 32. 32 Bottom up: for the sake of • Higher level elements provide reasons for striving for lower level elements • “For the sake of” relation is antisymmetrical • Higher level elements done for their own sake: intrinsic value
- 33. 33 Intrinsic versus instrumental value • Intrinsic values: valuable for their own sake • Instrumental values: valuable because they contribute to something else that is valuable (e.g. money)
- 34. 34 Intrinsic values according to Frankena • Life, consciousness, and activity • Health and strength • Pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds • Happiness, beatitude, contentment • Truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom • Beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated • Aesthetic experience • Morally good dispositions or virtues • Mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation • Just distribution of goods and evils • Harmony and proportion in one's own life • Power and experiences of achievement • Self-expression • Freedom • Peace, security • Adventure and novelty • Good reputation, honor, esteem
- 35. 35 Top down: two transitions • From values to norms • From general (moral) norms to design requirements
- 37. 37 Correspondence between values and norms V: If x is valuable or is a value one has reasons for a positive response (a pro- attitude or a pro-behavior) towards x May help to associate norms with values
- 38. 38 Possible positive responses • Increase • Maximize • Respect • Protect • Admire • Enjoy • What response is appropriate will usually depend on value and the context
- 39. 39 Examples of some appropriate responses in design • Safety – Respect safety margins – Maximize overall safety • Democracy – Involve stakeholders in the design process – Design criteria for democratic technologies (Sclove)
- 40. 40 What is a appropriate response to a value? • (v) is helpful – To determine appropriate response • But: – Requires judgment – Room for (rational) discussion and disagreement
- 41. 41 From norms to design requirements: specification • Non-deductive • Context-dependent • Adds information – Scope of norm – Specification of goals – Specification of means • Adequacy: does meeting lower level norms count as an instance of meeting higher level norm or value?
- 42. 42 Design requirements Norms Values Animal welfare Enough living space at least 450 cm2 floor area per hen 10 cm feeding trough per bird 40 cm height over at least 65% of the area floor-slope of maximally 14% Presence of laying nests Litter Perches Example of values hierarchy
- 43. 43 Quality criteria: critical questions • Are all relevant values included? • Is the relation between values appropriate? – Instrumental versus intrinsic values • From values to general norms – Are the individual norms an appropriate response to the values? – Are the norms jointly sufficient as response to the value? • From general norms to design requirements – Would meeting the design requirements count as an instance of meeting the norm (in the given context)?
- 44. 44 Critical questions • Are helpful for critical assessment • But: – Require judgment – Room for (rational) discussion and disagreement – Different stakeholders may disagree
- 45. 45 Sustainability Intergenerational justice Sustain availability of fuels Effective fuel Renewable Reliable supply Competitive price Reduce greenhouse gas emissions High energy efficiency No additional greenhouse emissions from cultivation, production and transportation Avoid increase in other environmental problems No increased use of fertilizer and pesticides No over-use of water and of other inputs No increased air pollution Care for nature Maintain biodiversity Cultivation should not have negative effects on biodiversity Intragenerational justice Avoid (additional) increase in food prices Non-edible No competition for agricultural land and other inputs Provide opportunities to developping countries Can be produced in developping countries Can be produced on small scale and with limited investments Ensure just reward Flexible use of license agreemnets for IP (intellectual Property) Should not detoriate working conditions for farmers
- 46. 46 Human well-being Safety Should be structural reliable Meet legal requirement s max heigt 4 meter etc. Design material stiff and strong enough for certain allowable loads and strains (safety factor) under certain load scenarios Choice of material Thickness of material Respect traffic safety concerns (crash comptability) Meet legal requirement s Blind spot mirrors Safety guardrails Structure of rear bumper Economic efficiency Minimize production costs Maximise transportatio n fuel efficiency Maximise freight per travel Minimise weight Maximise volume Minimize energy consumptio n per travel Minimise weight max 5000 kg Minimise air resistance Aerodynami c Usability Should be easy to use Flexible loading/unl oading Compatible with existing trucks Comfort Look and feel safe Floor deflection < 20 mm Heavy driver should not cause the floor to bend too much Side panels Easy to manoeuvre Torsional stiffness Sustainabilit y Maximise transportatio n fuel efficiency
- 47. 47 Limitations of values hierarchy • Not a straightforward methodology • Translation can be done in multiple ways • Possibility for disagreement among stakeholders
- 48. 48 Nevertheless • Helps to do it more structured and systematic • Quality criteria • Makes it possible to trace disagreement and to pinpoint critical issues
- 50. 50 Operationalisation of values • Aimed at making values measurable so that (design) options can be compared • Is done by associating measurable attributes with values
- 51. 51 A measurement • Very roughly, a measurement is a representation of (relations between) certain features of the world in terms of (relations between) a set of abstract entities. The set of abstract entities is known as the measurement scale. • Three kinds of measurement scales – Nominal – Ordinal – Quantitative (interval and ratio)
- 52. 52 Measuring moral values: the example of refrigerator coolants • In 1990s CFCs under attack due to contribution to ozone depletion • In household refrigerators: CFC 12 was commonly used as coolant • Search for alternatives – Important morally relevant values included human health and safety, and environmental sustainability
- 53. 53 Attributes Evaluation criteria Values Moral goodness Environmental sustainability Direct contribution to global warming Global Warming Potential (GWP) Contribution to ozone depletion Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) Energy efficiency Coefficient of Performance (COP) Safety Flammability Lower Flammability Limit (LFL) Heat of Combustion (HOC) Burning velocity Health Toxicity Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL)
- 54. 54 Role of context • What values are relevant is context- dependent • Conceptualization of moral values is largely context-independent • Specification of moral values in terms of evaluation criteria and attributes is context- dependent • Measurement methods for attributes will often be context-independent: technical standards
- 55. 55 Specification of moral values in attributes context-dependent: health and safety • Traditionally understood in terms of two evaluation attributes – Flammability – Toxicity • ASHRAE Standard 34 formulates the measurement scale in terms of 6 safety classes : – Toxicity class A or B based on TLV-TWA value (or comparable) – Flammability class 1, 2 or 3 based on LFL and HOC
- 56. 56
- 57. 57 Quality criteria Three conditions for a good measurement 1. reproducible: independent of (subjective features of) the person who performs the measurement (‘objectivity’) 2. accurate: close to the “real” value (no systematic errors/ limited random errors) 3. valid: does what is measured correspond to what one intended to measure
- 58. 58 Attributes Evaluation criteria Values Moral goodness Environmental sustainability Direct contribution to global warming Global Warming Potential (GWP) Contribution to ozone depletion Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) Energy efficiency Coefficient of Performance (COP) Safety Flammability Lower Flammability Limit (LFL) Heat of Combustion (HOC) Burning velocity Health Toxicity Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL)
- 59. 59 Two main issues • How to aggregate ? – How to aggregate the scores on the individual attributes into an overall measure? • Construct validity: – Do the attributes really measure the value? Both require (second-order) value judgements
- 60. 60 In sum: • Value measurement is not objective but involves value judgements • Two main issues are: – construct validity – how to aggregate attributes into overall measure • But some operationalisations are better than others: quality criteria
- 61. 61 Conclusions
- 62. 62 Some conclusions Specification Operationalisation What? Translates values into design requirements Makes values measurable Why? So that values can guide the design process So that design options can be compared in terms of values Translation steps Values -> norms -> design requirements Values -> evaluation criteria -> attributes Type of resulting judgements Deontic Evaluative
- 63. 63 Both specification and operationalisation: • Require first conceptualisation of values • Are context-specific – Often long and cumbersome processes • Involve value judgements – Can be done in different ways – Can be disagreement about • Come with certain quality criteria – Some are specifications and operationalisations are better than others
- 64. 64 • Not one best way • Requires transparency and accountability about how values have been operationalized