IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v62y2020ics0160791x19303951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comprehensive value framework for design

Author

Listed:
  • Kheirandish, Shadi
  • Funk, Mathias
  • Wensveen, Stephan
  • Verkerk, Maarten
  • Rauterberg, Matthias

Abstract

The significance of human values in everyday life highlights the integral role of this concept in any design that aims to improve the quality of human life. By emphasizing the need for a comprehensive value framework for design, the present study explores a new value framework to be used as a common ground in design. For this purpose, we empirically investigate how different people group human values. By spreading the link of our Human Values Survey worldwide via the internet, a variety of participants with different cultural backgrounds were reached, and hierarchical cluster analysis was used to analyze the data. As a result, 568 complete answers were collected, from which nine value groups were concluded: “carefulness”, “justice”, “ecology”, “respect for others”, “meaningfulness”, “status”, “pleasure”, “respect for oneself” and “personal development”. After clustering our data, we propose a value framework with four themes, nine value groups, 42 key values, and 135 extra values. This framework, raising designers’ awareness and widening their view of human values, provides the opportunity to address a diverse range of human values in design.

Suggested Citation

  • Kheirandish, Shadi & Funk, Mathias & Wensveen, Stephan & Verkerk, Maarten & Rauterberg, Matthias, 2020. "A comprehensive value framework for design," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:62:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x19303951
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X19303951
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, April.
    2. Voinea, Cristina, 2018. "Designing for conviviality," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 70-78.
    3. Brey, Philip, 2018. "The strategic role of technology in a good society," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 39-45.
    4. Nelson, Jake & Gorichanaz, Tim, 2019. "Trust as an ethical value in emerging technology governance: The case of drone regulation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nur, Bakheit Mohammed, 2020. "A case study of socio-cultural and technical factors in automobile design: Discourses between designers and potential users on a new electric vehicle in Africa," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Fu, Shihui & Sun, Yi & Guo, Yanting, 2023. "Revealing product innovation practitioners’ perspectives on design thinking: An exploratory research using Q-sort methodology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Rūtenis Jančius & Algirdas Gavenauskas & Antanas Ūsas, 2021. "The Influence of Values and the Social Environment on the Environmental Attitudes of Students: The Case of Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hudson, Marc, 2018. "Ending technocracy with a neologism? Avivocracy as a conceptual tool," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-139.
    2. Merodio Gómez, Paloma & Ramírez Santiago, Andrea & García Seco, Gabriela & Casanova, Rosario & MacKenzie, Denise & Tucker, Christopher, 2022. "Ethics in the use of geospatial information in the Americas," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Frederiksen, Marianne Harbo & Wolf, Patricia & Klotz, Ute, 2024. "Citizen visions of drone uses and impacts in 2057: Far-future insights for policy decision-makers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Tobias Knabke & Sebastian Olbrich, 2018. "Building novel capabilities to enable business intelligence agility: results from a quantitative study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 493-546, August.
    5. Sunder Shyam, 2011. "Imagined Worlds of Accounting," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-14, January.
    6. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    7. Basile, Luigi Jesus & Carbonara, Nunzia & Pellegrino, Roberta & Panniello, Umberto, 2023. "Business intelligence in the healthcare industry: The utilization of a data-driven approach to support clinical decision making," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Loris Gaio, 2005. "A diversity-based approach to requirements tracing in new product development," ROCK Working Papers 031, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 13 Jun 2008.
    9. B. A. Huberman & N. S. Glance, "undated". "Diversity and Collective Action," Working Papers _001, Xerox Research Park.
    10. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    11. David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Voting Decisions Exploring a 160-Year Period," Working Papers 2012.70, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Epting, Shane, 2021. "Vulnerable groups, virtual cities, and social isolation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    14. H. Christopher Frey & Sumeet R. Patil, 2002. "Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 553-578, June.
    15. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Michel Gutsatz, 2000. "Managerial Competencies for Organizational Flexibility: The Luxury Goods Industry between Tradition and Postmodernism," Post-Print hal-01892018, HAL.
    16. Rennard, Jean-Philippe, 2006. "Artificiality in Social Sciences," MPRA Paper 1458, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    18. Dalila Cisco Collatto & Aline Dresch & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda & Ione Ghislene Bentz, 2018. "Is Action Design Research Indeed Necessary? Analysis and Synergies Between Action Research and Design Science Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 239-267, June.
    19. Nadia Fiorino & Emma Galli & Ilde Rizzo & Marco Valente, 2023. "Public procurement and reputation. An agent‐based model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 806-832, November.
    20. Olivier L. de Weck & Marshall B. Jones, 2006. "Isoperformance: Analysis and design of complex systems with desired outcomes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 45-61, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:62:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x19303951. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.