Five Provocations for Ethical HCI Research

Author

Barry Brown, Alexandra Weilenmann, Donald McMillan, Airi Lampinen, CHI 2016

Keywords

Ethics; Human Trials; Research Practice

WHAT

  • to question some of the taken for granted foundations of ethics in HCI

WHY

  • HCI research projects have generated controversy due to their purported unethicality

  • ethical creep: virtuous but impractical positions are advocated, and little attention is paid to how seemingly ethical positions can delay, damage or stop research, with serious implications

HOW

  • an attempt to engender conversation through five provocations

5 provocations

  • Written informed consent does little to protect participants

  • Interventions with vulnerable populations must result in greater benefit for them than for the researchers

  • Anonymisation should be an option presented alongside co-creation of research with participants, not a default

  • Institutional review boards delay and damage research out of proportion to any harm they prevent. We should replace them

  • Publication of research performed with, or within, a commercial entity should be blocked until the complete dataset is made available to others – both during review and for future replicability of analysis

Discussion

  • The distinctive character of ethics in HCI

    • involve in the creation or design and implementation of particular social environments

    • have an orientation towards change in terms of design

    • give participants a conversely privileged position – they can influence the future shape of the tool they are using

  • Situated, Ordinary Ethics

    • Differentiate between ethics as practice versus ethics as law

    • Support low-risk experiments around ethics

    • Start a conversation on the definition of harm in ethics