背景:人工智能(AI)等新兴技术需要对潜在的社会和道德影响进行早期评估,以提高其可接受性。可取性,和可持续性。本文探讨并比较了其中2种评估方法:源自技术研究的负责任创新(RI)框架和源自设计研究的共同设计方法。虽然已引入RI框架以通过预期指导早期技术评估,inclusion,反身性,和响应能力,共同设计是一种普遍接受的方法,在技术的发展,以支持老年人的照顾有弱点。然而,关于共同设计如何有助于预期影响的理解有限。
目的:本文从经验上探讨了如何通过明确的预期来补充针对痴呆症护理人员的基于AI的决策支持系统(DSS)的共同设计过程。
方法:本案例研究调查了一个国际合作项目,重点是共同设计,发展,测试,以及旨在为痴呆症患者的正式护理人员提供可操作信息的DSS的商业化。与共同设计过程并行,进行了RI探索,其中包括检查项目成员对使用DSS的积极和消极影响的观点,以及解决这些影响的策略。对联合设计过程和RI勘探的结果进行了分析和比较。此外,与项目成员进行了回顾性访谈,以反思共同设计过程和RI探索。
结果:我们的结果表明,当参与探索DSS的要求时,共同设计参与者自然提出了负责任的设计和部署的各种含义和条件:保护隐私,防止认知过载,提供透明度,授权护理人员控制,保障准确性,培训用户。然而,当将共同设计结果与RI探索的见解进行比较时,我们发现了共同设计结果的局限性,例如,关于规范,相互关联性,以及含义和解决含义的策略的上下文依赖性。
结论:本案例研究表明,专注于创新机会的共同设计过程,而不是平衡对正面和负面影响的关注,可能会导致与社会和伦理影响以及如何解决这些问题相关的知识差距。为了追求负责任的结果,共同设计促进者可以扩大其范围,并重新考虑以流程为导向的RI预期和包容性原则的具体实施。
BACKGROUND: Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) require an early-stage assessment of potential societal and ethical implications to increase their acceptability, desirability, and sustainability. This paper explores and compares 2 of these assessment approaches: the responsible innovation (RI) framework originating from technology studies and the co-design approach originating from design studies. While the RI framework has been introduced to guide early-stage technology assessment through anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness, co-design is a commonly accepted approach in the development of technologies to support the care for older adults with frailty. However, there is limited understanding about how co-design contributes to the anticipation of implications.
OBJECTIVE: This paper empirically explores how the co-design process of an AI-based decision support system (DSS) for dementia caregivers is complemented by explicit anticipation of implications.
METHODS: This case study investigated an international collaborative project that focused on the co-design, development, testing, and commercialization of a DSS that is intended to provide actionable information to formal caregivers of people with dementia. In parallel to the co-design process, an RI exploration took place, which involved examining project members\' viewpoints on both positive and negative implications of using the DSS, along with strategies to address these implications. Results from the co-design process and RI exploration were analyzed and compared. In addition, retrospective interviews were held with project members to reflect on the co-design process and RI exploration.
RESULTS: Our results indicate that, when involved in exploring requirements for the DSS, co-design participants naturally raised various implications and conditions for responsible design and deployment: protecting privacy, preventing cognitive overload, providing transparency, empowering caregivers to be in control, safeguarding accuracy, and training users. However, when comparing the co-design results with insights from the RI exploration, we found limitations to the co-design results, for instance, regarding the specification, interrelatedness, and context dependency of implications and strategies to address implications.
CONCLUSIONS: This case study shows that a co-design process that focuses on opportunities for innovation rather than balancing attention for both positive and negative implications may result in knowledge gaps related to social and ethical implications and how they can be addressed. In the pursuit of responsible outcomes, co-design facilitators could broaden their scope and reconsider the specific implementation of the process-oriented RI principles of anticipation and inclusion.