Often in our line of work we are asked to do things that do not serve the user's benefit and are not in line with UX design best practices, but is there a specific line that we should not cross as UX professionals, or something that we can show our employers regarding the standards and professional guidelines that we should abide by?
Also, in addressing this question, I think it would be invaluable to tease out the aspects of any references that are specific to the area of UX design, even if it is combining several areas that are relevant to the discipline (e.g. pyschology, engineering, marketing).
Answer
There is some interesting academic work surrounding ethics and user experience, even though I have not come across a formal/industry "code of ethics" for UX practitioners specifically. There are books that touch on the "dark patterns" of experience design, and you will see some related questions here on UX.SE to that effect. One of the more recent academic papers by researchers from Microsoft Research is titled: "Benevolent Deception in Human Computer Interaction" (CHI 2013), and touches on the ethics of deception (malevolent and benevolent deception), as highlighted by their abstract:
Though it has been asserted that "good design is honest", deception exists throughout human-computer interaction research and practice. Because of the stigma associated with deception - in many cases rightfully so - the research community has focused its energy on eradicating malicious deception, and ignored instances in which deception is positively employed. In this paper we present the notion of benevolent deception, deception aimed at benefitting the user as well as the developer. We frame our discussion using a criminology-inspired model and ground components in various examples. We assert that this provides us with a set of tools and principles that not only helps us with system and interface design, but that opens new research areas. After all, as Cockton claims in his 2004 paper "Value-Centered HCI", "Traditional disciplines have delivered truth. The goal of HCI is to deliver value."
However, there may be two complimentary codes of ethics that could serve as a basis for discussion with an employer/client. The first is the Design Institute of Australia (DIA) code of ethics and professional conduct. It seems to cover things nicely from a designer-perspective, and is based on a number of international codes of conduct (as highlighted below)
An important object of the DIA is to have its members recognised in the design professions and among the general public as having professional status of the highest standard.
To achieve this the DIA expects its members to conduct themselves honourably and honestly in their dealings with their clients, the community and their colleagues.
This Guide is based on the Model Code of Professional Conduct for Designers which has been accepted by members of the following bodies: International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID), International Federation of Interior Designers (IFI), International Council of Graphic Design Associations (ICOGRADA).
The DIA offers this code as a guide to acceptable behaviour.
The DIA’s Constitution provides for the expulsion of members who do not comply.
The second complimentary code of ethics is the joint ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. The ACM and the IEEE are two of the largest professional societies for technical fields. They include both a short and a long version, but you will notice the engineering perspective in both. A small extract highlights some of the ethical considerations (as pointed out by your question):
Ethical tensions can best be addressed by thoughtful consideration of fundamental principles, rather than blind reliance on detailed regulations. These Principles should influence software engineers to consider broadly who is affected by their work; to examine if they and their colleagues are treating other human beings with due respect; to consider how the public, if reasonably well informed, would view their decisions; to analyze how the least empowered will be affected by their decisions; and to consider whether their acts would be judged worthy of the ideal professional working as a software engineer. In all these judgments concern for the health, safety and welfare of the public is primary; that is, the "Public Interest" is central to this Code.
EDIT: To follow on from the discussion in the comments, I think it may be relevant to include Marketing Ethics as an example of another multi-disciplinary field (Marketing) with a focus on human research (Market Research), with the associated cognitive science/psychology/societal ethical challenges (deceptive advertising, stereotyping, planned obsolescence).
Driven to the extreme, the research can focus heavily on "neuromarketing", defined as a field that...
... studies consumers' sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective response to marketing stimuli. Researchers use technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure changes in activity in parts of the brain, electroencephalography (EEG) and Steady state topography (SST) to measure activity in specific regional spectra of the brain response, and/or sensors to measure changes in one's physiological state, also known as biometrics, including (heart rate and respiratory rate, galvanic skin response) to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and what part of the brain is telling them to do it.
The Neuromarketing Science and Business Association (NMSBA) has a code of ethics that aims to establish boundaries of professional conduct when conducting neuromarketing research. Perhaps two points listed under the "Integrity" heading applies directly to your question:
Neuromarketing researchers shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that participants are in no way harmed or stressed as a result of their involvement in a Neuromarketing research project.
Neuromarketing researchers shall not deceive participants or exploit their lack of knowledge of neuroscience.
On the less extreme side of marketing research, the American Marketing Association provides their own Statement of Ethics that starts with the very clear norm:
Do no harm. This means consciously avoiding harmful actions or omissions by embodying high ethical standards and adhering to all applicable laws and regulations in the choices we make.
Overall I think these "statements of professional conduct" or "statement of ethics" tend to cover similar ground with regards to how to treat participants in a study, or clients, and how to represent results. It should not be too difficult to develop a meaningful UX-centric ethics statement from these examples. As pointed out by some other answers, this has already started to happen (see the UXPA Code of Professional Conduct specifically).
No comments:
Post a Comment