Just Accepted
A Responsible and Inclusive Technology Framework for Attending to Business-to-Business Contexts
Abstract
Technology development practices in industry are often primarily focused on business results, which risks creating unbalanced power relations between corporate interests and the needs or concerns of people who are affected by technology implementation and use. These practices, and their associated cultural norms, may result in uses of technology that have direct, indirect, short-term, and even long-term negative effects on groups of people and/or the environment. This is especially critical in B2B (business-to-business) settings due to the potential for responsibility gaps to emerge in such contexts where technologies are sold to one or more third party company obfuscating downstream impacts. This paper contributes a formative framework -the Responsible and Inclusive Technology Framework- that orients critical reflection around the social contexts of technology creation and use; the power dynamics between self, business, and societal stakeholders; the impacts of technology on various communities across past, present, and future dimensions; and the practical decisions that imbue technological artifacts with cultural values. The framework and its components were iteratively developed based on observations of 10 internal exploratory workshops conducted with a total of 49 participants across the company. We expect that the use of the Responsible and Inclusive Technology framework, especially in B2B industry settings, will serve as a catalyst for more intentional and socially-grounded practices, thus bridging the responsibility and principles-to-practice gap.
References
[1]
Janet Abbate and Stephanie Dick (Eds.). 2022. Abstractions and Embodiments: New Histories of Computing and Society. John Hopkins University Press.
[2]
Nadia Abu El-Haj. 2002. Facts on the Ground: Archeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. The University of Chicago Press.
[3]
Alejandro Agafonow. 2017. Design Thinking and Social Enterprises: A Solution-Focused Strategy for Social Enterprise Research. European Management Review(2017).
[4]
Warwick Anderson. 2006. Colonial Pathologies: American Tropical Medicine, Race, and Hygiene in the Philippines. Duke University Press.
[5]
M. Arnold, R. K. E. Bellamy, M. Hind, S. Houde, S. Mehta, A. Mojsilović, R. Nair, K. Natesan Ramamurthy, A. Olteanu, D. Piorkowski, D. Reimer, J. Richards, J. Tsay, and K. R. Varshney. 2019. FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (2019), 6:1–6:13.
[6]
Neda Atanasoski and Kalindi Vora. 2019. Surrogate Humanity: Race, Robots, and the Politics of Technological Futures. Duke University Press.
[7]
Stephanie Ballard, Karen M Chappell, and Kristen Kennedy. 2019. Judgment call the game: Using value sensitive design and design fiction to surface ethical concerns related to technology. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 421–433.
[8]
Chelsea Barabas, Colin Doyle, JB Rubinovitz, and Karthik Dinakar. 2020. Studying up: Reorienting the Study of Algorithmic Fairness around Issues of Power. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 167–176.
[9]
Maria Cecília Calani Baranauskas, Maria Cecília Martins, and José Armando Valente. 2013. Codesign de Redes Digitais: tecnologia e educação a serviço da inclusão social. Penso Editora.
[10]
Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity.
[11]
Richard Benjamins. 2021. A choices framework for the responsible use of AI. AI and Ethics 1, 1 (2021), 49–53.
[12]
Elettra Bietti. 2020. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 210–219.
[13]
Wiebe E Bijker. 1997. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press.
[14]
Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign 8, 2-3 (June 2012), 127–144.
[15]
Pablo Calderon Salazar and Liesbeth Huybrechts. 2020. PD otherwise will be pluriversal (or it won’t be). In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 1 (Manizales Colombia). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
[16]
Alan Chan, Chinasa T. Okolo, Zachary Terner, and Angelina Wang. 2021. The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development. arxiv:2102.01265 [cs.CY]
[17]
Rachel Charlotte Smith, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Daria Loi, Asnath Paula Kambunga, Marly Muudeni Samuel, and Rogerio de Paula. 2020. Decolonising Participatory Design Practices: Towards Participations Otherwise. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 2 (PDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 206–208.
[18]
Nicole Chi, Emma Lurie, and Deirdre K Mulligan. 2021. Reconfiguring diversity and inclusion for AI ethics. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 447–457.
[19]
Cyd Cipolla, Kristina Gupta, David Rubin, and Angela Willey (Eds.). 2017. Queer Feminist Science Studies: A Reader. University of Washington Press.
[20]
Patricia Hill Collins. 1986. Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social problems 33, 6 (1986), s14–s32.
[21]
Kate Crawford. 2021. The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
[22]
Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. Princeton University Press.
[23]
Hendry David, Batya Friedman, and Stephanie Ballard. 2021. Value Sensitive Design as a Formative Framework. Ethics and Information Technology 23 (2021), 39–44.
[24]
Mark Díaz, Ian Kivlichan, Rachel Rosen, Dylan Baker, Razvan Amironesei, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Emily Denton. 2022. CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotation. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2342–2351.
[25]
Catherine D’Ignazio, Erhardt Graeff, Christina N Harrington, and Daniela K Rosner. 2020. Toward Equitable Participatory Design: Data Feminism for CSCW amidst Multiple Pandemics. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Virtual Event, USA) (CSCW ’20 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 437–445.
[26]
Catherine D’ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2020. Data feminism. MIT press.
[27]
Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT press.
[28]
Salma Elsayed-Ali, Sara E Berger, Vagner Figueredo De Santana, and Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval. 2023. Responsible & Inclusive Cards: An Online Card Tool to Promote Critical Reflection in Technology Industry Work Practices. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 14 pages.
[29]
Maximilian Feike and Jürgen Rösch. 2024. Nuanced but important: A literature-based comparison between B2B and B2C platforms. Decision Analytics Journal 10 (2024), 100383.
[30]
B Flyvbjerg, T Landman, and Schram S. 2012. Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis. Cambridge University Press.
[31]
R.E Freeman and D.R. Gilbert. 1992. Business, Ethics and Society: A Critical Agenda. Business and Society 31, 1 (1992), 9–17.
[32]
Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 6 (1996), 16–23.
[33]
Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2012. The envisioning cards: a toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1145–1148.
[34]
Duana Fullwiley. 2012. The Enculturated Gene: Sickle Cell Health Politics and Biological Difference in West Africa. Princeton University Press.
[35]
Ben Gansky and Sean McDonald. 2022. CounterFAccTual: How FAccT Undermines Its Organizing Principles. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1982–1992.
[36]
Tohid Ghanbarpour, Lawrence Crosby, Michael D Johnson, and Anders Gustafsson. 2024. The influence of corporate social responsibility on stakeholders in different business contexts. Journal of Service Research 27, 1 (2024), 141–155.
[37]
Ira Globus-Harris, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. 2022. An Algorithmic Framework for Bias Bounties. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1106–1124.
[38]
Trystan S Goetze. 2021. Moral Entanglement: Taking Responsibility and Vicarious Responsibility. The Monist 104, 2 (2021), 210–223.
[39]
Trystan S. Goetze. 2022. Mind the Gap: Autonomous Systems, the Responsibility Gap, and Moral Entanglement. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 390–400.
[40]
Rodrigo Freese Gonzatto and Frederick MC van Amstel. 2022. User oppression in human-computer interaction: a dialectical-existential perspective. Aslib Journal of Information Management 74, 5 (2022), 758–781.
[41]
Rodrigo Freese Gonzatto and Frederick M. C. van Amstel. 2017. Designing Oppressive and Libertarian Interactions with the Conscious Body. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Joinville, Brazil) (IHC 2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 10 pages.
[42]
Ben Green. 2020. The False Promise of Risk Assessments: Epistemic Reform and the Limits of Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 594–606.
[43]
Ben Green. 2021. The contestation of tech ethics: A sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice. Journal of Social Computing 2, 3 (2021), 209–225.
[44]
Daniel Greene, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. 2019. Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. (2019).
[45]
Dhruv Grewal, Abhijit Guha, Cinthia B Satornino, and Elisa B Schweiger. 2021. Artificial intelligence: The light and the darkness. Journal of Business Research 136 (2021), 229–236.
[46]
Evelynn M. Hammonds and Rebecca M. Herzig. 2009. The Nature of Difference: Sciences of Race in the United States from Jefferson to Genomics. The MIT Press.
[47]
Donna Haraway. 1990. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge.
[48]
M Harbers and A Overdiek. 2022. Towards a living lab for responsible applied AI, In DRDS Conference Proceedings (Bilbao, Spain). Design Research Society.
[49]
Sandra Harding (Ed.). 2003. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Routledge.
[50]
Christina Harrington and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2021. Eliciting Tech Futures Among Black Young Adults: A Case Study of Remote Speculative Co-Design. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 397, 15 pages.
[51]
Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–25.
[52]
Gabrielle Hecht. 2014. Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade. The MIT Press.
[53]
Caroline Hill, Michelle Molitor, and Christine Ortiz. 2016. Racism and inequity are products of design. They can be redesigned.
[54]
Anna Lauren Hoffman. 2021. Terms of Inclusion: Data, discourse, violence. New Media & Society 23, 12 (2021), 3539–3556.
[55]
Lily Hu. 2021. Tech ethics: speaking ethics to power, or power speaking ethics?Journal of Social Computing 2, 3 (2021), 238–248.
[56]
Ben Hutchinson and Margaret Mitchell. 2019. 50 Years of Test (Un)Fairness: Lessons for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–58.
[57]
Michael Katell, Meg Young, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Vivian Guetler, Aaron Tam, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, and P. M. Krafft. 2020. Toward Situated Interventions for Algorithmic Equity: Lessons from the Field. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–55.
[58]
Terence Keel. 2018. Divine Variations: How Christian Thought Became Racial Science. Stanford University Press.
[59]
Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen Longino. 1996. Feminism and Science. Oxford University Press.
[60]
Goda Klumbytė, Claude Draude, and Alex S Taylor. 2022. Critical Tools for Machine Learning: Working with Intersectional Critical Concepts in Machine Learning Systems Design. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1528–1541.
[61]
Karen Knorr Cetina. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
[62]
Precarity Lab. 2020. Technoprecarious. Goldsmiths Press.
[63]
Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.
[64]
Benjamin Laufer, Sameer Jain, A. Feder Cooper, Jon Kleinberg, and Hoda Heidari. 2022. Four Years of FAccT: A Reflexive, Mixed-Methods Analysis of Research Contributions, Shortcomings, and Future Prospects. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 401–426.
[65]
Dorothy E Leidner and Timothy Kayworth. 2006. A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS quarterly (2006), 357–399.
[66]
David Ludwig and Phil Macnaghten. 2020. Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: a framework for responsible and just innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 7, 1 (2020), 26–44. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1676686
[67]
Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Long Beach, California, USA) (NIPS’17). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 4768–4777.
[68]
Michael Madaio, Shivani Kapania, Rida Qadri, Ding Wang, Andrew Zaldivar, Remi Denton, and Lauren Wilcox. 2024. Learning about Responsible AI On-The-Job: Learning Pathways, Orientations, and Aspirations. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (FAccT ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1544–1558.
[69]
Shoshana Amielle Magnet. 2011. When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race, and the Technology of Identity. Duke University Press.
[70]
Abraham Harold Maslow. 1966. The psychology of science a reconnaissance. (1966).
[71]
Zoe Minh-Tam Dao-Kroeker, Alexandra Kitson, Alissa N. Antle, Yumiko Murai, and Azadeh Adibi. 2021. Designing Biotech ethics cards: Promoting critical making during an online workshop with youth. In Interaction Design and Children. 450–455.
[72]
Alexandra Minna Stern. 2005. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. University of California Press.
[73]
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 220–229.
[74]
Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza, Txetxu Ausín, Belén Liedo, Mario Toboso, Manuel Aparicio, and Daniel López. 2022. Ethical Governance of AI in the Global South: A Human Rights Approach to Responsible Use of AI. Proceedings 81, 1 (2022).
[75]
Jared Moore. 2020. Towards a More Representative Politics in the Ethics of Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 414–424.
[76]
Evgeny Morozov. 2013. To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs.
[77]
Anwesha Mukherjee, Vagner Figueredo De Santana, and Alexis Baria. 2023. ImpactBot: Chatbot Leveraging Language Models to Automate Feedback and Promote Critical Thinking Around Impact Statements. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 388, 8 pages.
[78]
Luke Munn. 2022. The uselessness of AI ethics. AI and Ethics (2022), 1–9.
[79]
Lisa Nakamura. 2007. Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet. Minnesota University Press.
[80]
Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.
[81]
Samir Passi and Solon Barocas. 2019. Problem Formulation and Fairness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–48.
[82]
Samir Passi and Steven J. Jackson. 2018. Trust in Data Science: Collaboration, Translation, and Accountability in Corporate Data Science Projects. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 136(nov 2018), 28 pages.
[83]
Samir Passi and Phoebe Sengers. 2020. Making data science systems work. Big data & society 7, 2 (2020), 2053951720939605.
[84]
Theodore M. Porter. 2020. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press.
[85]
E Racine, B D’Anjou, C Dallaire, V Dumez, C Favron-Godbout, A Hudon, M Montreuil, C Olivier, A Quintal, and V Chenel. 2024. Developing a living lab in ethics: Initial issues and observations. Bioethics 38(2024), 153–163.
[86]
Peter Redfield. 2000. Space in the Tropics: From Convicts to Rockets in French Guiana. University of California Press.
[87]
Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. ”Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (San Francisco, California, USA) (KDD ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1135–1144.
[88]
Sarah Robinson, Jim Buckley, Luigina Ciolfi, Conor Linehan, Clare McInerney, Bashar Nuseibeh, John Twomey, Irum Rauf, and John McCarthy. 2024. Infrastructural justice for responsible software engineering,. Journal of Responsible Technology 19 (2024), 100087.
[89]
A.M. Aslam Saja, Melissa Teo, Ashantha Goonetilleke, and Abdul M. Ziyath. 2018. An inclusive and adaptive framework for measuring social resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28 (2018), 862–873.
[90]
Daniel Schiff, Bogdana Rakova, Aladdin Ayesh, Anat Fanti, and Michael Lennon. 2020. Principles to Practices for Responsible AI: Closing the Gap.
[91]
Ruth Schwartz Cowan. 1985. How the refrigerator got its hum. In The social shaping of technology, Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (Eds.). McGraw Hill Education, 202–218.
[92]
Kristen M. Scott, Sonja Mei Wang, Milagros Miceli, Pieter Delobelle, Karolina Sztandar-Sztanderska, and Bettina Berendt. 2022. Algorithmic Tools in Public Employment Services: Towards a Jobseeker-Centric Perspective. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2138–2148.
[93]
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 (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 59–68.
[94]
Seven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. 2017. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press.
[95]
Charles Shepherd and Pervaiz K Ahmed. 2000. From product innovation to solutions innovation: a new paradigm for competitive advantage. European Journal of Innovation Management(2000).
[96]
Thomas Smyth and Jill Dimond. 2014. Anti-oppressive design. Interactions 21, 6 (2014), 68–71.
[97]
Ronald Stamper. 1993. A semiotic theory of information and information systems. In Invited papers for the ICL/University of Newcastle Seminar on Information.
[98]
David Stark. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton University Press.
[99]
Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42, 9 (2013), 1568–1580.
[100]
Kim TallBear. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minnesota University Press.
[101]
Petros Terzis. 2020. Onward for the Freedom of Others: Marching beyond the AI Ethics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 220–229.
[102]
Fabiana Tomasini Giannini and Ingrid Mulder. 2022. Towards a Power-Balanced Participatory Design Process. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022 - Volume 2 (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (PDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–117.
[103]
Frederick MC van Amstel, Lesley-Ann Noel, and Rodrigo Freese Gonzatto. 2022. Design, Oppression, and Liberation. Diseña21(2022), Intro–Intro.
[104]
Robin van Oorschot, Dirk Snelders, Maaike Kleinsmann, and Jacob Buur. 2022. Participation in design research. Design Studies 78(Jan. 2022), 101073.
[105]
Michael E. W. Varnum and Igor Grossmann. 2017. Cultural Change: The How and the Why. Perspectives on Psychological Science 12, 6 (2017), 956–972. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699971 28915361.
[106]
Christian Voegtlin and Andreas Georg Scherer. 2017. Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of business ethics 143, 2 (2017), 227–243.
[107]
Amy Voida, Lynn Dombrowski, Gillian R. Hayes, and Melissa Mazmanian. 2014. Shared Values/Conflicting Logics: Working around e-Government Systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3583–3592.
[108]
Kutoma Wakunuma, Fabio de Castro, Tilimbe Jiya, Edurne A. Inigo, Vincent Blok, and Vincent Bryce. 2021. Reconceptualising responsible research and innovation from a Global South perspective. Journal of Responsible Innovation 8, 2 (2021), 267–291. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1944736
[109]
D Watts. 2017. Should social science be more solution-oriented?Nature Human Behavior(2017).
[110]
Richard Wetzel, Tom Rodden, and Steve Benford. 2017. Developing ideation cards for mixed reality game design. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 3, 2(2017).
[111]
Jess Whittlestone, Rune Nyrup, Anna Alexandrova, and Stephen Cave. 2019. The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Honolulu, HI, USA) (AIES ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195–200.
[112]
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 Transparency (Chicago, IL, USA) (FAccT ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 467–479.
[113]
Sarah Williams. 2022. Data action: Using data for public good. MIT Press.
[114]
Langdon Winner. 1980. Do artifacts have politics?Deadalus (1980), 121–136.
[115]
Bruce Woodings. 2006. Aligning large multi-cultural teams performance with a solutions focused approach. In Solution-focused management. Reiner Hampp Verlag, 371–382.
[116]
Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Public Affairs.
Index Terms
- A Responsible and Inclusive Technology Framework for Attending to Business-to-Business Contexts
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
EISSN:2832-0565
Table of ContentsCopyright © 2025 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International 4.0.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Online AM: 29 January 2025
Accepted: 19 December 2024
Revised: 08 November 2024
Received: 23 October 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 56Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)56
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)56
Reflects downloads up to 23 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in