Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 159 references

Towards Creating Infrastructures for Values and Ethics Work in the Production of Software Technologies

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read HCI should build infrastructures that support values and ethics work—redesigning organizational processes, communities, standards, and policy—rather than only designing tools for individual tech workers.

desk verdict A coherent, self-aware position paper that usefully reframes HCI values/ethics work toward infrastructure building; the transfer from infrastructure studies to actionable tactics is asserted, not yet demonstrated, but this deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11490 v1 pith:KOO36YVZ submitted 2025-07-15 cs.HC

Richmond Y. Wong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords valuesindesigninfrastructurestudiesethicsworktechnologyproductionorganizationalprocessespolicyandstandardsHCI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

HCI's standard way of addressing values and ethics in technology production has been to build tools that help individual designers and engineers make better product decisions. This paper argues that this tool-centered approach fails because the real obstacles are organizational and structural: tech workers often lack decision-making power, face incentives that work against ethical action, and are blocked by secrecy and hostile corporate processes. Drawing on infrastructure studies, the author proposes treating the social, organizational, and governance arrangements around technology production as an infrastructure that can be redesigned, and intervening across a wider landscape—organizational processes, communities of practice, standards, law, and policy—through multiple simultaneous modes of action. The goal is to create the conditions under which tech workers can successfully advocate for values and ethics, rather than to hand them a better checklist. If correct, this reorients values-in-design research from artifact design toward process and governance design.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the infrastructure lens, defined as the social, political, and technical arrangements that allow systems to function. The paper uses it in two ways: analytically, to conduct an 'infrastructural inversion' that foregrounds the processes and relationships normally in the background of design, and as a mode of action, treating those arrangements as redesignable. The mobilizing ideas include the relational question of when something is infrastructure, the inversion that brings background work into view, the repair-and-maintenance perspective that treats breakdown as a site for surfacing values, and the view of standards, law, and policy as infrastructure themselves. These ideas generate the paper's four tactics: designing values into organizational processes, building communities of practice, supporting the invisible labor of values and ethics advocates, and designing standards, policies, and tools that tactically engage existing systems.

What would settle it

Track values and ethics advocates in organizations that adopt the proposed infrastructural tactics—redesigned review processes, community-building activities, and standards engagement—and compare their ability to raise ethical concerns and change product decisions against advocates in organizations using only conventional tools; if several such comparisons show no difference, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that infrastructures—the sociotechnical arrangements that allow systems to function—should become both the analytic lens and the target of design for values and ethics in technology production. The author argues that HCI's dominant mode of action, designing tools and evaluating them with users, assumes an empowered individual worker who can make alternate design decisions; in practice workers face social power barriers, organizational incentives, and structural constraints. Treating the processes of technology production as infrastructure opens them up for redesign: privacy and security reviews, performance evaluations, financial investment practices, voluntary risk-management frameworks, and laws can all be shaped to create 'handholds' that support values and ethics advocates. The paper presents four infrastructural insights—infrastructures are dynamic processes, are social and experienced from multiple subject positions, require ongoing invisible work, and are embedded in standards, law, and policy—and derives a tactic from each. The concluding position is that supporting values and ethics work requires multiple, simultaneous modes of action across this broader landscape.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that concepts from infrastructure studies, developed to understand systems like the internet and undersea cables, transfer to the organizational processes of technology companies in ways that give HCI researchers actionable levers for change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, values and ethics research in HCI would expand beyond product-design tools to include the redesign of organizational processes such as privacy and security reviews, performance evaluations, and investment and disclosure practices.
  • Researchers and advocates would treat standards and policy as design surfaces, in particular by embedding 'handholds' in frameworks that legitimize the involvement of user-experience and human-computer-interaction expertise in technology governance.
  • Design activities would aim to build communities of practice and alliances among values and ethics advocates, not only to improve individual moral reasoning.
  • Tools would be designed to acknowledge the positionality, safety, and invisible labor of their users, sometimes by making ethics work less visible rather than more visible.
  • Change would be pursued through several modes of action at once—technical artifacts, organizational processes, communities, standards, and policy—because action in one area can open or close opportunities in others.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the infrastructural approach implies that the field's evaluation practices would need to shift: success would be measured by changes in organizational conditions and outcomes for advocates, rather than by tool usability in laboratory or classroom settings.
  • The same lens could be turned on the research community itself, since the barriers to studying corporate practice—nondisclosure agreements, corporate secrecy, and contracting practices—are infrastructure too and could become sites for collective workarounds and shared research infrastructure.
  • The paper's focus on U.S. corporate settings could be extended by testing whether the tactics transfer to public-sector organizations, academic laboratories, and non-U.S. contexts where legal protections and labor conditions differ.
  • A testable extension would be to develop metrics for 'conditions for advocacy'—such as whether concerns raised by advocates lead to changed decisions—and compare them across organizations adopting different combinations of the proposed tactics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a conceptual/position paper arguing that HCI’s dominant approach to values and ethics—building tools to help individual tech workers—is insufficient because it ignores the broader organizational, economic, and governance processes that constrain advocacy. Drawing on infrastructure studies from STS and media studies, the paper proposes that HCI should work toward “infrastructures for values and ethics work,” and it develops four insights with associated tactics: designing values into organizational processes, building communities of practice, supporting invisible values/ethics work, and designing standards, law, and policy. The paper then discusses the need for multiple simultaneous modes of action, the challenges of hostile infrastructures and corporate secrecy, and the possibility of re-imagining infrastructures. The scope is explicitly the U.S. corporate technology production context, and the paper is framed as an agenda rather than an empirical evaluation.

Significance. If accepted, the paper would usefully reorient HCI values-in-design research from artifact-centric tool building toward a broader landscape of intervention—organizational processes, standards, policy, law, and communities—and it would connect a large body of recent practice-based research to infrastructure studies in a productive way. The paper’s strengths are its careful scoping, its explicit acknowledgment of access barriers and structural limits (Sections 4.2 and 4.3), and its transparent self-disclosure about the origins of its conceptual structure. It does not provide machine-checked proofs or empirical tests; its value is as a framework and research agenda that opens new questions and tactics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, esp. 3.1–3.4.1] The central claim that an infrastructural lens “opens up” organizational processes, standards, and policies “for (re)design” is supported by asserted affinities rather than by demonstration. The paper lists plausible tactics and existing exemplars, but no worked case shows that a values/ethics intervention at the infrastructural level changed who participates in decisions or improved advocacy conditions. The NIST AI RMF discussion in Section 3.4.1 illustrates this: the paper says “Presumably, HCI advocates were involved in the creation of this framework” but offers no evidence for that presumption or for any downstream effect on participation. As written, the paper’s strongest claim goes beyond what the evidence shows. I recommend either adding at least one detailed, documented case (for example, reconstructing how a standard or policy came to include UX expertise and what changed as a result) or explicitly repositioning the contribution as a research agenda with testable hypotheses.
  2. [Sections 4.2–4.3] The paper acknowledges that nondisclosure agreements, corporate secrecy, and contracting practices can block researchers from reaching the very sites that Section 3 proposes to redesign, and it concedes that the proposed interventions work within existing institutions of global capital. This is an honest limitation, but it is not integrated into the tactics themselves: Section 3.1’s process-design tactic and Section 3.2.1’s community-building tactic presuppose access that Section 4.2 says may be unavailable. Because the stated goal is to “help create the conditions for tech workers to successfully advocate,” the paper should specify which of the proposed tactics remain accessible despite these barriers (for example, standards-body participation, regulatory comment periods, public-sector analogues, or worker-led research) or should narrow the claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] In the vignette, “In the end, noting really changed” should read “nothing really changed.”
  2. [Section 3.1] The term “infrastucturing” is a typo for “infrastructuring.”
  3. [Section 3.4.1] The paper states that NIST released the AI Risk Management Framework in April 2024, but reference [98] is the NIST AI RMF 1.0, published in January 2023; the date should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.2] “Threats posted by existing infrastructures” should read “threats posed by existing infrastructures.”
  5. [Footnote 4] The footnote discloses that the organization of Section 3 is similar to the author’s earlier “Infrastructural Speculations” [149]; the paper would benefit from a sentence explaining what is newly contributed beyond that earlier work, so that the present contribution is not read as a reorganization of prior material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's programmatic argument is self-contained and rests on external infrastructure-studies theory and independent empirical practice research.

full rationale

This is a conceptual/programmatic paper, not an empirical derivation with fitted parameters, so the fitted-input and prediction-reduction patterns do not apply. The central move—using infrastructure studies to expand sites and modes of action for values and ethics work—is grounded in external STS scholarship (Star and Ruhleder, Bowker et al., Jackson, Starosielski) and in externally conducted empirical studies of tech workers' values and ethics practice (Ali et al., Widder et al., Scheuerman and Brubaker, Madaio et al.). The paper's own prior work appears as definitional and illustrative sources: [144] supplies the term 'values work,' [149] is acknowledged in footnote 4 as a structural antecedent, and [146], [148], [150] provide examples. None of these self-citations carries a load-bearing premise such as a uniqueness theorem or a fitted parameter; the argument does not reduce to them. Section 3 explicitly frames each tactic as having 'affinities' with an infrastructural insight taken from external literature, and the proposal that organizational processes, standards, and policies can be (re)designed is a stated design orientation rather than an empirical prediction that would be forced by construction. The limitations conceded in Sections 4.2 and 4.3—nondisclosure agreements, corporate secrecy, and working 'within existing institutions of global capital'—are internal scope constraints, not circular derivations. No equation, definition, or citation chain makes the conclusion equivalent to its inputs. The skeptics' concern that the infrastructure-to-action transfer is asserted rather than demonstrated is a contribution-strength or evidence limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters apply: the paper contains no quantitative fits. Five domain assumptions carry the argument, chiefly the transferability of infrastructure concepts to tech company organizational processes and the accessibility of the proposed modes of action. One programmatic category, 'infrastructures for values and ethics work', is introduced without a falsifiable handle.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HCI's dominant tool-based approach to values and ethics is insufficient because organizational, social, and political constraints limit individual tech workers.
    Motivates the entire paper; supported by the Francine vignette and cited practice research (Ali et al. [2], Widder et al. [142], Madaio et al. [87]), but treated as established background rather than demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The infrastructure-studies concept of infrastructure transfers productively to the organizational processes of technology production and reveals actionable sites of intervention.
    This transfer is argued by analogy and affinity throughout Section 3; no independent test of the transfer is provided, making it load-bearing.
  • domain assumption HCI researchers and designers can effectively (re)design organizational processes, standards, policies, and laws to create conditions favorable to values and ethics work.
    Assumes the enumerated modes of action are accessible and efficacious. Section 4.3 concedes the interventions operate within existing institutions of global capital; Section 4.2 documents concrete access barriers such as nondisclosure agreements.
  • domain assumption The Francine vignette and the cited practice-based studies represent broader patterns in technology production.
    The vignette is a single anecdote; the paper says it is 'reflective of research' [2, 84, 88, 117, 142, 144], but representativeness is asserted rather than established.
  • domain assumption The US corporate business context is the appropriate primary scope for the analysis.
    Stated in footnotes 1 and 2, citing the global influence of US technology firms; this scope limits generalization to other sectors and countries, which the paper acknowledges.
invented entities (1)
  • Infrastructures for values and ethics work (proposed design category)
    purpose: The paper's central proposal: instead of designing artifacts for individuals, HCI should create or (re)design organizational processes, standards, policies, communities, and other background arrangements that shape the conditions of technology production.
    This is a programmatic category introduced by the paper. No falsifiable handle or success metric is provided: the tactics are illustrated with existing examples (NIST AI RMF, GDPR as a piggyback point, ethics games for ally building), but no infrastructure built under this program is evaluated. Whether it 'helps create the conditions for tech workers to successfully advocate' is not operationalized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Creating Infrastructures for Values and Ethics Work in the Production of Software Technologies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOO36YVZ

@misc{pith2026250711490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Creating Infrastructures for Values and Ethics Work in the Production of Software Technologies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOO36YVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11490}
}
read the original abstract

Recognizing how technical systems can embody social values or cause harms, human-computer interaction (HCI) research often approaches addressing values and ethics in design by creating tools to help tech workers integrate social values into the design of products. While useful, these approaches usually do not consider the politics embedded in the broader processes, organizations, social systems, and governance structures that affect the types of actions that tech workers can take to address values and ethics. This paper argues that creating infrastructures to support values and ethics work, rather than tools, is an approach that takes these broader processes into account and opens them up for (re)design. Drawing on prior research conceptualizing infrastructures from science \& technology studies and media studies, this paper outlines conceptual insights from infrastructures studies that open up new tactics for HCI researchers and designers seeking to support values and ethics in design.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robinson

    Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G. Robinson. 2020. Roles for computing in social change. FAT* 2020 - Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2020), 252–260. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372871 ISBN: 9781450369367

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Ali, Angèle Christin, Andrew Smart, and Riitta Katila

    Sanna J. Ali, Angèle Christin, Andrew Smart, and Riitta Katila. 2023. Walking the Walk of AI Ethics: Organizational Challenges and the Individualization of Risk among Ethics Entrepreneurs. In2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Chicago IL USA, 217–226. doi:10.1145/3593013.3593990

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Peter M. Asaro. 2000. Transforming society by transforming technology: The science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 10, 4 (2000), 257–290. doi:10.1016/S0959-8022(00)00004- 7 ISBN: 0959-8022

    work page doi:10.1016/s0959-8022(00)00004- 2000

  4. [4]

    Bamberger and Deirdre K

    Kenneth A. Bamberger and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2015. Privacy on the Ground: Driving Corporate Behavior in the United States and Europe . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2015

  5. [6]

    Johana Bhuiyan. 2019. How the Google walkout transformed tech workers into activists. The Los Angeles Times (Nov. 2019). https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-11-06/google- employee-walkout-tech-industry-activism

    2019

  6. [7]

    Geoffrey C. Bowker. 1994. Information mythology: The world of/as information. In Information Acumen. The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business, Lisa Bud-Frierman (Ed.). Routledge, 231–247. Section: 11

    1994

  7. [8]

    Bowker, Karen Baker, Florence Millerand, and David Ribes

    Geoffrey C. Bowker, Karen Baker, Florence Millerand, and David Ribes. 2010. Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment. In International Handbook of Internet Research . Springer Nether- lands, Dordrecht, 97–117. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_5 2010

  8. [9]

    Geoffrey C Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press

    2000

Show all 159 references
  1. [10]

    Jenna Burrell. 2018. Thinking relationally about digital inequality in rural regions of the U.S. First Monday 23, 6 (June 2018). doi:10.5210/fm.v23i6.8376

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    Alissa Centivany. 2016. Policy as Embedded Generativity: A Case Study of the Emergence and Evolution of HathiTrust. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ’16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 924–938. doi:...

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    Popcorn Tastes Good

    Alissa Centivany and Bobby Glushko. 2016. "Popcorn Tastes Good": Participa- tory Policymaking and Reddit’s "AMAgeddon". In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16 . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1126–1137. doi:10.1145/285803...

    2016

  4. [13]

    Pillai, and Richmond Y

    Inha Cha, Ajit G. Pillai, and Richmond Y. Wong. 2024. Ethics Pathways: A Design Activity for Reflecting on Ethics Engagement in HCI Research. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24) . doi:10.1145/3643834. 3660714 arXiv:2405.16654 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Shannon Chance, Tom Børsen, Diana Adela Martin, Roland Tormey, Thomas Taro Lennerfors, and Gunter Bombaerts (Eds.). 2025. The Routledge International Handbook of Engineering Ethics Education . Routledge, London. doi:10.4324/9781003464259

    2025 doi

  6. [15]

    Fleischmann

    An-Shou Cheng and Kenneth R. Fleischmann. 2010. Developing a meta- inventory of human values: Developing a Meta-Inventory of Human Values. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47, 1 (Nov. 2010), 1–10. doi:10.1002/meet.14504701232

    2010 doi

  7. [16]

    EunJeong Cheon and Vera Khovanskaya. 2024. Amazon Z to A: Speculative Design to Understand the Future of Labor-Intensive Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 314–...

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Aiza Hasib, Ziqing Li, Jingle Chen, and Colin M Gray

  9. [18]

    Pivonka, Jingning Chen, and Colin M

    Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Anne C. Pivonka, Jingning Chen, and Colin M. Gray. 2021. Surveying the Landscape of Ethics-Focused Design Methods. Technical Report. 1–28 pages. http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08909 arXiv: 2102.08909

    2021 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Chris Rhys Watkins, Rhea Manocha, Jingle Chen, and Colin M. Gray. 2020. Dimensions of UX Practice that Shape Ethical Awareness. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/33...

    2020

  11. [20]

    Julie E. Cohen. 2006. Pervasively distributed copyright enforcement.Georgetown Law Journal 95 (2006), 1–48

    2006

  12. [21]

    Julie E. Cohen. 2019. Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

    2019

  13. [22]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design justice: community-led practices to build the worlds we need / . The MIT Press, Cambridge

    2020

  14. [23]

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO...

    2023

  15. [24]

    Laura DeNardis and Francesca Musiani. 2016. Governance by Infrastructure. In The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance , Francesca Musiani, Derrick L. Cogburn, Laura DeNardis, and Nanette S. Levinson (Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, 3–21. doi:10.1057/9781137483591_1

    2016 doi

  16. [26]

    Design Justice Network. 2018. Design Justice Network Principles. https: //designjustice.org/read-the-principles

    2018

  17. [27]

    Mulligan

    Nick Doty and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2013. Internet Multistakeholder Processes and Techno-Policy Standards: Initial Reflections on Privacy at the World Wide Web Consortium. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law (2013), 135–182

    2013

  18. [28]

    Pelle Ehn. 2008. Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the Tenth An- niversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC ’08) . Indiana University, USA, 92–101

    2008

  19. [29]

    Arturo Escobar. 2018. Introduction. In Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interde- pendence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds . Duke University Press, Durham. doi:10.1215/9780822371816

    2018 doi

  20. [30]

    Virginia Eubanks. 2015. Automating Inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor . St. Martin’s Press, New York

    2015

  21. [31]

    Cristie Ford. 2023. Regulation as Respect. Law & Contemporary Problems 83, 3 (Sept. 2023), 133. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol86/iss3/6

    2023

  22. [32]

    Fox, Kiley Sobel, and Daniela K

    Sarah E. Fox, Kiley Sobel, and Daniela K. Rosner. 2019. Managerial Visions: sto- ries of upgrading and maintaining the public restroom with IoT. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19 . ACM Press, New York, New York, 1–15. doi...

    2019

  23. [33]

    Jody Freeman. 2000. Private Parties, Public Functions and the New Administra- tive Law. Administrative Law Review 52, 3 (2000), 813–858

    2000

  24. [34]

    Hendry, and Alan Borning

    Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry, and Alan Borning. 2017. A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Inter- action 11, 2 (2017), 63–125. doi:10.1561/1100000015 ISBN: 9781680832907

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

    Kahn, and Alan Borning

    Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2008. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics , Kenneth Einar Himma and Herman T. Tavani (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 69–101. doi:10.1002/978047028...

    2008 doi

  26. [37]

    Dan Goodin. 2024. Hacker plants false memories in ChatGPT to steal user data in perpetuity. https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/09/false-memories- planted-in-chatgpt-give-hacker-persistent-exfiltration-channel/

    2024

  27. [38]

    Gray and Shruthi Sai Chivukula

    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 - CHI ’19. ACM Press, New York, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300408

    2019

  28. [39]

    Gray, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Thomas V Carlock, Ziqing Li, and Ja- Nae Duane

    Colin M. Gray, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Thomas V Carlock, Ziqing Li, and Ja- Nae Duane. 2023. Scaffolding Ethics-Focused Methods for Practice Resonance. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2023

  29. [40]

    Gray, Ike Obi, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Thomas V Carlock, Matthew S Will, Anne C Pivonka, Janna Johns, Brookley Rigsbee, Ambika R Menon, and Aayushi Bharadwaj

    Colin M. Gray, Ike Obi, Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Thomas V Carlock, Matthew S Will, Anne C Pivonka, Janna Johns, Brookley Rigsbee, Ambika R Menon, and Aayushi Bharadwaj. 2024. Building an Ethics-Focused Action Plan: Roles, Process Moves, and Trajectories. InProceedings...

    2024

  30. [41]

    Gray and Siddharth Suri

    Mary L. Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019. Ghost Work. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

    2019

  31. [42]

    Daniel Greene, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. 2019. Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A Critical Assessment of the Movement for Ethical Artificial In- telligence and Machine Learning. InProceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences . doi:10.24...

    2019 doi

  32. [43]

    Judith Gregory. 2003. Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design. Inter- national Journal of Engineering Education 19, 1 (2003), 62–74

    2003

  33. [44]

    Rohan Grover. 2024. Encoding Privacy: Sociotechnical Dynamics of Data Protec- tion Compliance Work. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642872

    2024

  34. [45]

    Seda Gürses and Joris Van Hoboken. 2017. Privacy After the Agile Turn. In Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy , Jules Polonetsky, Omer Tene, and Evan Selinger (Eds.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.31235/osf.io/9gy73

    2017 doi

  35. [46]

    Margaret Hagan. 2020. Legal Design as a Thing: A Theory of Change and a Set of Methods to Craft a Human-Centered Legal System. Design Issues 36, 3 (June 2020), 3–15. doi:10.1162/desi_a_00600

    2020 doi

  36. [47]

    Ole Hanseth and Kalle Lyytinen. 2008. Theorizing about the Design of Informa- tion Infrastructures: Design Kernel Theories and Principles. All Sprouts Content 4, 12 (April 2008). https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/68

    2008

  37. [48]

    Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 216:1–216:25. doi:10.1145/3359318

    2019 doi

  38. [49]

    Woodrow Hartzog. 2018. Privacy’s Blueprint: The Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2018

  39. [50]

    Drew Harwell. 2019. Police can keep Ring camera video forever and share with whomever they’d like, Amazon tells senator. The Washington Post (Nov. 2019). https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/19/police-can-keep- ring-camera-video-forever-share-with-whomever-theyd-l...

    2019

  40. [51]

    Thomas Heath. 2016. This employee ID badge monitors and lis- tens to you at work — except in the bathroom. (7 September 2016). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/07/this- employee-badge-knows-not-only-where-you-are-but-whether-you-are- talking-to-your-co-workers/

    2016

  41. [52]

    Mireille Hildebrandt. 2015. Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology. Edward Elgar Publishing. Google-Books- ID: 2FLfBgAAQBAJ

    2015

  42. [53]

    Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2020. Terms of inclusion: Data, discourse, violence.New Media & Society (Sept. 2020), 146144482095872. doi:10.1177/1461444820958725

    2020 doi

  43. [54]

    Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Glasgow Scot...

    2019

  44. [55]

    Amanda Hoover. 2023. An Eating Disorder Chatbot Is Suspended for Giv- ing Harmful Advice. Wired (Jan. 2023). https://www.wired.com/story/tessa- chatbot-suspended/ Section: tags. AAR 2025, August 18–22, 2025, Aarhus N, Denmark Wong

    2023

  45. [56]

    Leah Horgan and Paul Dourish. 2018. Ambiguity, Ambivalence, and Activism: Data Organizing Inside the Institution. Krisis 1 (2018). https://www.proquest. com/docview/2291068958/abstract/E10CB99CB7A04ECCPQ/1 Place: Amster- dam, Netherlands Publisher: Krisis Section: Articles

    2018

  46. [58]

    Kai-Hsin Hung. 2024. Artificial intelligence as planetary assemblages of colonial- ity: The new power architecture driving a tiered global data economy. Big Data & Society 11, 4 (Dec. 2024), 20539517241289443. doi:10.1177/20539517241289443 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2024 doi

  47. [59]

    Ivan Illich. 1973. Tools for Conviviality. Marion Boyars, London

    1973

  48. [60]

    International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2019. ISO 9241-210:2019, Ergonomics of human-system interaction, Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html

    2019

  49. [61]

    Lilly Irani. 2016. The hidden faces of automation. XRDS 23, 2 (Dec. 2016), 34–37. doi:10.1145/3014390

    2016 doi

  50. [62]

    Six Silberman

    Lilly Irani and M. Six Silberman. 2014. From critical design to critical infrastruc- ture. Interactions 21, 4 (2014), 32–35. doi:10.1145/2627392

    2014 doi

  51. [63]

    Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E Grinter

  52. [64]

    Steven J. Jackson. 2014. Rethinking Repair. In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo J. Boczkowski, and Kirsten A. Foot (Eds.). The MIT Press, 221–240. doi:10.7551/mitpress/ 9780262525374.003.0011

    2014 doi

  53. [65]

    Jackson, Paul N Edwards, Geoffrey C

    Steven J. Jackson, Paul N Edwards, Geoffrey C. Bowker, and Cory P. Knobel

  54. [66]

    Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette

    Steven J. Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette. 2014. The policy knot. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing - CSCW ’14 . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 588–602. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531674

    2014

  55. [67]

    Steven J Jackson and Laewoo Kang. 2014. Breakdown, obsolescence and reuse: HCI and the art of repair. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’14 . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 449–458. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557332

    2014

  56. [68]

    Jackson, Stephanie B

    Steven J. Jackson, Stephanie B. Steinhardt, and Ayse Buyuktur. 2013. Why CSCW needs science policy (and vice versa). Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’13 (2013), 1113. http://dl.acm. org/citation.cfm?doid=2441776.2441902 ISBN: 97...

    2013

  57. [69]

    Nassim JafariNaimi, Lisa Nathan, and Ian Hargraves. 2015. Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the Service of Values.Design Issues 31, 4 (Oct. 2015), 91–104. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00354 ISBN: 13978-3-923859-82-5

    2015 doi

  58. [70]

    Vera Khovanskaya, Eric P. S. Baumer, and Phoebe Sengers. 2015. Double Binds and Double Blinds: Evaluation Tactics in Critically Oriented HCI. In The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives (AA ’15) , Vol. 1. 12. doi:10. 7146/aahcc.v1i1.21266 ISSN: 2445-7221 Issue: 1

    2015

  59. [71]

    Vera Khovanskaya, Lynn Dombrowski, Jeffrey Rzeszotarski, and Phoebe Sengers

  60. [72]

    Vera Khovanskaya and Phoebe Sengers. 2019. Data Rhetoric and Uneasy Al- liances: Data Advocacy in US Labor History. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1391–1403. doi:10.1145/3322276.3323691

    2019

  61. [73]

    Vera Khovanskaya, Phoebe Sengers, and Lynn Dombrowski. 2020. Bottom-Up Organizing with Tools from On High: Understanding the Data Practices of Labor Organizers. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20) . Association for Computin...

    2020

  62. [74]

    code as law

    E.J. Koops. 2008. Criteria for normative technology: An essay on the acceptability of "code as law" in light of democratic and constitutional values. In Regulating technologies, R. Brownsword and K. Yeung (Eds.). Hart Publishing, Oxford, 157– 174

    2008

  63. [75]

    Yubo Kou and Colin M. Gray. 2018. Distinctions Between the Communication of Experiential and Academic Design Knowledge: a linguistic analysis. DRS Biennial Conference Series (June 2018). https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs- conference-papers/drs2018/researchpapers/107

    2018

  64. [76]

    What do you recommend a complete beginner like me to practice?

    Yubo Kou and Colin M. Gray. 2018. "What do you recommend a complete beginner like me to practice?": Professional Self-Disclosure in an Online Com- munity. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 94:1–94:24. doi:10.1145/3274363

    2018 doi

  65. [77]

    P M Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Jennifer E Lee, Shankar Narayan, Micah Epstein, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, Pa Ousman Jobe, Franziska Putz, Brian Robick, and Bissan Barghouti. 2021. An Action-Oriented AI Policy...

    2021

  66. [78]

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    1991

  67. [79]

    Le Dantec

    Christopher A. Le Dantec. 2016. Design through collective action / collective action through design. interactions 24, 1 (Dec. 2016), 24–30. doi:10.1145/3018005

    2016 doi

  68. [80]

    Le Dantec, Erika Shehan Poole, and Susan P

    Christopher A. Le Dantec, Erika Shehan Poole, and Susan P. Wyche. 2009. Values as lived experience: Evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 09 . ACM Press, Ne...

    2009

  69. [81]

    Lee, Paul Dourish, and Gloria Mark

    Charlotte P. Lee, Paul Dourish, and Gloria Mark. 2006. The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work . ACM, Banff Alberta Canada, 483–492. doi:10.1145/1180875.1180950

    2006

  70. [82]

    Michelle Seng Ah Lee and Jat Singh. 2021. The Landscape and Gaps in Open Source Fairness Toolkits. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3411764. 3445261

    2021 doi

  71. [83]

    Lawrence Lessig. 2006. What Things Regulate. In Code version 2.0. Basic Books, New York

    2006

  72. [84]

    Eilat Lev Ari, Maayan Roichman, and Eran Toch. 2024. Strategies of Product Managers: Negotiating Social Values in Digital Product Design. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) . As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    2024

  73. [85]

    2017.Antici- pating GDPR in Smart Homes Through Fictional Conversational Objects

    Joseph Lindley, Paul Coulton, Haider Ali Akmal, and Bran Knowles. 2017.Antici- pating GDPR in Smart Homes Through Fictional Conversational Objects. Technical Report. Lancaster University

    2017

  74. [86]

    Silvia Lindtner and Seyram Avle. 2017. Tinkering with Governance: Tech- nopolitics and the Economization of Citizenship. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 1–18. doi:10.1145/3134705

    2017 doi

  75. [87]

    Michael Madaio, Lisa Egede, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wort- man Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2022. Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners’ Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (March 20...

    2022 arXiv

  76. [88]

    Madaio, Jingya Chen, Hanna Wallach, and Jennifer Wort- man Vaughan

    Michael A. Madaio, Jingya Chen, Hanna Wallach, and Jennifer Wort- man Vaughan. 2024. Tinker, Tailor, Configure, Customize: The Articulation Work of Contextualizing an AI Fairness Checklist. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 214:1–214:...

    2024 doi

  77. [89]

    Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach

    Michael A. Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach

  78. [90]

    Nora McDonald and Andrea Forte. 2021. Powerful Privacy Norms in Social Network Discourse. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3479565

    2021 doi

  79. [91]

    Sara Merken. 2025. AI ’hallucinations’ in court papers spell trouble for lawyers. Reuters (Feb. 2025). https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ ai-hallucinations-court-papers-spell-trouble-lawyers-2025-02-18/

    2025

  80. [92]

    Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, and danah boyd. 2019. Owning ethics: Corporate logics, Silicon Valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Social Research 86, 2 (2019), 449–476

    2019

  81. [93]

    Cade Metz. 2021. A second Google A.I. researcher says the company fired her. The New York Times (Feb. 2021). https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/ technology/google-ethical-artificial-intelligence-team.html

    2021

  82. [94]

    Cade Metz and Daisuke Wakabayashi. 2020. Google Researcher Says She Was Fired Over Paper Highlighting Bias in A.I. The New York Times (Dec. 2020). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researcher- timnit-gebru.html

    2020

  83. [95]

    Debra Meyerson and Megan Tompkins. 2007. Tempered Radicals as Institutional Change Agents: The Case of Advancing Gender Equity at the University of Michigan Multi-Disciplinary Responses to Susan Sturm’s - The Architecture of Inclusion. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 30, 2 (20...

    2007

  84. [96]

    Mulligan and Helen Nissenbaum

    Deirdre K. Mulligan and Helen Nissenbaum. 2020. The Concept of Handoff as a Model for Ethical Analysis and Design. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das (Eds.). Oxford University Press, 231–251. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/97801900673...

    2020

  85. [97]

    Nathan, Batya Friedman, Predrag Klasnja, Shaun K

    Lisa P. Nathan, Batya Friedman, Predrag Klasnja, Shaun K. Kane, and Jessica K. Miller. 2008. Envisioning systemic effects on persons and society throughout interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS ’08 . ACM Pres...

    2008

  86. [98]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2023. Artificial Intel- ligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) . Technical Report NIST AI 100-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD. NIST AI 100–1 pages. doi:10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

    2023 doi

  87. [99]

    Helen Nissenbaum. 2001. How computer systems embody values. Computer 34, 3 (March 2001), 120–119. doi:10.1109/2.910905

    2001 doi

  88. [100]

    Lisa Parks and Nicole Starosielski (Eds.). 2015. Signal Traffic: Critical Studies of Media Infrastructures. University of Illinois Press

    2015

  89. [101]

    Samir Passi and Steven J Jackson. 2018. Trust in Data Science: Collaboration, Translation, and Accountability in Corporate Data Science Projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 1–28. doi:10. 1145/3274405

    2018

  90. [102]

    Samir Passi and Phoebe Sengers. 2020. Making data science systems work. Big Data and Society 7, 2 (2020). doi:10.1177/2053951720939605

    2020 doi

  91. [103]

    Thao Phan, Jake Goldenfein, Monique Mann, and Declan Kuch. 2021. Economies of Virtue: The Circulation of ‘Ethics’ in Big Tech. Science as Culture 0, 0 (Nov. 2021), 1–15. doi:10.1080/09505431.2021.1990875 Publisher: Taylor & Francis

    2021

  92. [104]

    Kavita Philip, Lilly Irani, and Paul Dourish. 2012. Postcolonial Computing: A Tactical Survey. Science, Technology & Human Values 37, 1 (2012), 3–29. doi:10.1177/0162243910389594 ISBN: 0162-2439

    2012 doi

  93. [105]

    James Pierce, Sarah Fox, Nick Merrill, and Richmond Wong. 2018. Differential Vulnerabilities and a Diversity of Tactics: What Toolkits Teach Us about Cy- bersecurity. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 1–24. doi:10.1145/3274408

    2018 doi

  94. [106]

    Brendan Pierson. 2023. Lawsuit claims UnitedHealth AI wrong- fully denies elderly extended care. Reuters (Nov. 2023). https: //www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuit-claims-unitedhealth-ai-wrongfully- denies-elderly-extended-care-2023-11-14/

    2023

  95. [107]

    Pillai, Thida Sachathep, and Naseem Ahmadpour

    Ajit G. Pillai, Thida Sachathep, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2022. Exploring the experience of ethical tensions and the role of community in UX practice. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference . ACM, Aarhus Denmark, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3546155.3546683

    2022

  96. [108]

    Volkmar Pipek and Volker Wulf. 2009. Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10, 5 (May 2009). doi:10.17705/1jais.00195

    2009 doi

  97. [109]

    Kristina Popova, Clàudia Figueras, Kristina Höök, and Airi Lampinen. 2024. Who Should Act? Distancing and Vulnerability in Technology Practitioners’ Accounts of Ethical Responsibility. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 157:1–157:27. doi:10.1145/3637434

    2024 doi

  98. [110]

    Miriam Posner. 2022. Agile and the Long Crisis of Software. Logic(s) Maga- zine 16 (March 2022). https://logicmag.io/clouds/agile-and-the-long-crisis-of- software/

    2022

  99. [111]

    Bogdana Rakova, Jingying Yang, Henriette Cramer, and Rumman Chowdhury

  100. [112]

    Why do we do this?

    Sonja Rattay, Ville Vakkuri, Marco C. Rozendaal, and Irina Shklovski. 2025. "Why do we do this?": Moral Stress and the Affective Experience of Ethics in Practice. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) . Association for Comput...

    2025

  101. [113]

    Noopur Raval. 2021. Interrupting invisibility in a global world. interactions 28, 4 (June 2021), 27–31. doi:10.1145/3469257

    2021 doi

  102. [114]

    Emma Rose and Josh Tenenberg. 2016. Arguing about design: A taxonomy of rhetorical strategies deployed by user experience practitioners. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication - SIGDOC ’16. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1–10...

    2016

  103. [115]

    Christopher Rowland. 2019. With fitness trackers in the workplace, bosses can monitor your every step — and possibly more. The Washington Post (Feb. 2019). https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-fitness-trackers- in-the-workplace-bosses-can-monitor-your-every-ste...

    2019

  104. [116]

    Morgan Klaus Scheuerman. 2024. In the Walled Garden: Challenges and Op- portunities for Research on the Practices of the AI Tech Industry. In Proceed- ings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’24). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2024

  105. [117]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Hu- man Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–23

    Where Responsible AI meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on En- ablers for Shifting Organizational Practices. Proceedings of the ACM on Hu- man Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–23. doi:10.1145/3449081 arXiv: 2006.12358v4

    2021 arXiv

  106. [118]

    Daniel Schiff, Bogdana Rakova, Aladdin Ayesh, Anat Fanti, and Michael Lennon

  107. [119]

    Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A

    Andrew D. Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machi...

    2019

  108. [120]

    Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Ros- tamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N’Mah Yilla-Akbari, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smart, Emilio Garcia, and Gurleen Virk. 2023. Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction. In Proceed...

    2023

  109. [121]

    Katie Shilton. 2010. Technology development with an agenda: Interventions to emphasize values in design. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47, 1 (Nov. 2010), 1–10. doi:10.1002/meet.14504701040

    2010 doi

  110. [122]

    Katie Shilton. 2013. Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design. Science, Tech- nology, & Human Values 38, 3 (2013), 374–397. doi:10.1177/0162243912436985

    2013 doi

  111. [123]

    Brubaker

    Morgan Klaus Scheuerman and Jed R. Brubaker. 2024. Products of Position- ality: How Tech Workers Shape Identity Concepts in Computer Vision. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    2024

  112. [124]

    Koepfler, and Kenneth R

    Katie Shilton, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann. 2014. How to see values in social computing: Methods for Studying Values Dimensions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 426–435...

    2014 doi

  113. [125]

    Principles to Practices for Responsible AI: Closing the Gap. (2020). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2006.04707 Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1

    2020 doi arXiv

  114. [126]

    Anne Spaa, Abigail Durrant, Chris Elsden, and John Vines. 2019. Understanding the Boundaries between Policymaking and HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. ...

    2019

  115. [127]

    Danny Spitzberg. 2023. Creating Standards: Our Secret Job as Researchers. Interactions 30, 5 (Aug. 2023), 39–43. doi:10.1145/3615670

    2023 doi

  116. [128]

    Design Justice

    Danny Spitzberg, Kevin Shaw, Colin Angevine, Marissa Wilkins, M Strickland, Janel Yamashiro, Rhonda Adams, and Leah Lockhart. 2020. Principles at Work: Applying “Design Justice” in Professionalized Workplaces . Technical Report. 1–5 pages. doi:10.21428/93b2c832.e3a8d187 Public...

    2020 doi

  117. [129]

    Susan Leigh Star. 1999. The Ethnography of Infrastructure.American Behavioral Scientist 43, 3 (Nov. 1999), 377–391. doi:10.1177/00027649921955326 ISBN: 0002764992195

    1999 doi

  118. [130]

    Katie Shilton. 2018. Values and Ethics in Human-Computer Interaction. Foun- dations and Trends ® in Human–Computer Interaction 12, 2 (2018), 107–171. doi:10.1561/1100000073 ISBN: 9781139168564

    2018 doi

  119. [131]

    Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss. 1999. Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8, 1 (March 1999), 9–30. doi:10.1023/A:1008651105359

    1999 doi

  120. [132]

    Natasha Singer and Cade Metz. 2019. Many Facial-Recognition Systems Are Biased, Says U.S. Study. The New York Times (Dec. 2019). https://www.nytimes. com/2019/12/19/technology/facial-recognition-bias.html

    2019

  121. [133]

    Stephanie B Steinhardt. 2016. Breaking Down While Building Up: Design and Decline in Emerging Infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16 . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 2198–2208. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858420

    2016

  122. [134]

    Norman Makoto Su, Amanda Lazar, and Lilly Irani. 2021. Critical Affects: Tech Work Emotions Amidst the Techlash. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3449253 Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery

    2021 doi

  123. [135]

    Harry Surden. 2007. Structural Rights in Privacy. SMU Law Review 60 (2007), 1605–1629

    2007

  124. [136]

    J. S. Tan, Natalia Luka, and Emily Mazo. 2024. Unlikely Organizers: The Rise of Labor Activism Among Professionals in the U.S. Technology Industry. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2307.15790 arXiv:2307.15790 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  125. [137]

    Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1994. Steps towards an ecology of infras- tructure: complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported coop- erative work (CSCW ’94) . Association for...

    1994

  126. [138]

    Niels van Berkel and Kasper Hornbæk. 2023. Implications of Human-Computer Interaction Research. interactions 30, 4 (June 2023), 50–55. doi:10.1145/3600103

    2023 doi

  127. [139]

    Nicole Starosielski. 2015. The Undersea Network . Duke University Press, Durham

    2015

  128. [140]

    Herbsleb, and Nikolas Martelaro

    David Gray Widder, Laura Dabbish, James D. Herbsleb, and Nikolas Martelaro

  129. [141]

    AI supply chain

    David Gray Widder and Dawn Nafus. 2023. Dislocated accountabilities in the “AI supply chain”: Modularity and developers’ notions of responsibility.Big Data & Society 10, 1 (Jan. 2023), 20539517231177620. doi:10.1177/20539517231177620 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2023 doi

  130. [142]

    David Gray Widder, Derrick Zhen, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2023. It’s about power: What ethical concerns do software engineers have, and what do they (feel they can) do about them?. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparenc...

    2023

  131. [143]

    Wolf, Mariam Asad, and Lynn S

    Christine T. Wolf, Mariam Asad, and Lynn S. Dombrowski. 2022. Designing within Capitalism. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 439–453. doi:10.1145/3532106.3533559

    2022

  132. [144]

    Anh-Ton Tran. 2024. Doing What Counts: Following Eviction Data from the Community to the Court. In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24 Companion) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–18. doi:10.1145/36...

    2024

  133. [145]

    Richmond Y Wong. 2021. Using Design Fiction Memos to Analyze UX Pro- fessionals’ Values Work Practices: A Case Study Bridging Ethnographic and Design Futuring Methods. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). ACM, 18. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445709

    2021

  134. [146]

    Qiaosi Wang, Michael Madaio, Shaun Kane, Shivani Kapania, Michael Terry, and Lauren Wilcox. 2023. Designing Responsible AI: Adaptations of UX Practice to Meet Responsible AI Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23) ....

    2023

  135. [147]

    Wong and Steven J

    Richmond Y. Wong and Steven J. Jackson. 2015. Wireless Visions: Infrastructure, Imagination, and U.S. Spectrum Policy. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’15). doi:10. 1145/2675133.2675229

    2015

  136. [148]

    Wong and Vera Khovanskaya

    Richmond Y. Wong and Vera Khovanskaya. 2018. Speculative Design in HCI: From Corporate Imaginations to Critical Orientations. In New Directions in 3rd Wave HCI, Michael Filimowicz (Ed.). Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 175–202. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73374-6_10

    2018 doi

  137. [149]

    Richmond Y Wong, Vera Khovanskaya, Sarah E Fox, Nick Merrill, and Phoebe Sengers. 2020. Infrastructural Speculations: Tactics for Designing and Interro- gating Lifeworlds. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2020 doi

  138. [150]

    Wong, Michael A

    Richmond Y. Wong, Michael A. Madaio, and Nick Merrill. 2023. Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3579621

    2023 doi

  139. [151]

    Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D

    Qian Yang, Richmond Y. Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D. Hagan, Thomas Gilbert, and John Zimmerman. 2024. The Future of HCI-Policy Collaboration. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’24) . Association for Computin...

    2024

  140. [152]

    Richmond Y Wong. 2021. Tactics of Soft Resistance in User Experience Profes- sionals’ Values Work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 28. doi:10.1145/3479499 Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery

    2021 doi

  141. [153]

    Christian Zlolniski. 2003. Labor Control and Resistance of Mexican Immi- grant Janitors in Silicon Valley. Human Organization 62, 1 (March 2003), 39–

    2003

  142. [154]

    Wong, Andrew Chong, and R

    Richmond Y. Wong, Andrew Chong, and R. Cooper Aspegren. 2023. Privacy Leg- islation as Business Risks: How GDPR and CCPA are Represented in Technology Companies’ Investment Risk Disclosures. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 82:1–82:2...

    2023 doi

  143. [155]

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power . PublicAffairs, New York, NY

    2019

  144. [160]

    Meg Young, Michael Katell, and P.M. Krafft. 2022. Confronting Power and Corporate Capture at the FAccT Conference. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1375–...

    2022 doi

  145. [162]

    doi:10.17730/humo.62.1.376mj445em7jw65u Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.62.1.376mj445em7jw65u

    doi

  146. [163]

    Nathan Matias

    Jonathan Zong and J. Nathan Matias. 2023. Data Refusal From Below: A Frame- work for Understanding, Evaluating, and Envisioning Refusal as Design. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing (Oct. 2023). doi:10.1145/3630107 Just Ac- cepted

    2023 doi

  147. [2007]

    First Monday 12, 6 (June 2007), 1–8

    Understanding infrastructure: History, heuristics and cyberinfrastructure policy. First Monday 12, 6 (June 2007), 1–8. doi:10.5210/fm.v12i6.1904

    2007 doi

  148. [2010]

    InProceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’10

    Postcolonial computing: A lens on design and development. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’10. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1311. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753522

  149. [2019]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov

    The Tools of Management: Adapting Historical Union Tactics to Platform- Mediated Labor. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–22. doi:10.1145/3359310

    2019 doi

  150. [2021]

    InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Identity Claims that Underlie Ethical Awareness and Action. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445375

    2021

  151. [2024]

    License to Critique

    Power and Play: Investigating "License to Critique" in Teams’ AI Ethics AAR 2025, August 18–22, 2025, Aarhus N, Denmark Wong Discussions. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024), 399:1– 399:23. doi:10.1145/3686938

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.