Ethics: Beneficence
Guest Contribution
With the increasing relevance of human centered design, usability testing becomes more and more common as a way to determine the user’s experience with the interaction design. However as with any form of experimentation with humans, ethics becomes involved in order to insure that the participants are not subjected to danger or harm. This ethic is beneficence; the acts of kindness or charity that go beyond obligation (Ryan et al). It is in this dictionary definition of beneficence where misunderstandings may occur in the perception of the principle of beneficence.. According to the Belmont Report, beneficence goes beyond just acts of kindness but is rather an obligation to do no harm, extending so far in going to minimize possible harms and maximize possible benefits (Ryan et al). Therefore beneficence in this sense is not just an occasional effort but a commitment and sense of duty to the participant’s health, be it physical or mental.
Given the conflicting nature of scientific researches involving human subjects and the weight of the value of data collection, ethical dilemmas are frequent in the conduct of experiments. Difficulties may arise in which the principles of the ethics may be hard to align with the given situation. It may be hard to determine what course of action should be taken in order to meet the ethical standard without compromising the data obtained. For example, if all the paths forward to proceed contain negative consequences, then beneficence would be lost as these paths go against the obligation of doing no harm. In this case, the route to take would be the one to bring the least possible harm but obtain the most benefits for the user. Another point of difficulty may come from identifying the risks and what constitutes as harm. Determining what constitutes as necessary for the research goal and what constitutes as unnecessary harm can also be difficult. For each of the harm measured and conducted, there must be solid justification as to why this harm must occur and how that aligns to the research’s goal.
In the third sprint of HCDE 210, my teammates and I conducted a usability test on the microwave, a daily household appliance. We decided upon three tasks that were more commonly performed in everyday use of the microwave. These tasks included opening and closing the microwave door, setting the cook time to 2 minutes and 45 seconds as well as defrosting five pieces of frozen chicken wings. The users we selected were all college students as college students are one of the most common users of microwave. The data types were all in accordance to measure the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of the microwave. The three data types were the amount of time taken to complete the task, a description of how difficult it was for the user to complete the task, and finally a rating from one to five with five being the most and one being the least satisfied with the microwave function. In this usability testing, beneficence is applied mostly in the psychological sense, as the test should limit the amount of mental harm that could be done to the user. Mental damage could occur to the user if they feel pressured at how long they are taking with a particular task, which might lead them to feel ashamed and disappointed at themselves. While this may not necessarily be a long-termed psychological harm, it is something to keep in mind for the users’/participants’ health. However the user might think that the amount of time they take might be a reflection on their intelligence. On the other hand, the data that comes from the amount of time that the user takes to complete the tasks can be beneficial in accurately representing the flaws of the microwave user interface. In this case, the usability test will continue as planned considering how the harm are not long-lasting which is outweighed by the benefits provided by a more accurate show of data on the usability of the microwave interface. To minimize the mental harm, the user will be introduced to a scenario where they are alone to complete the task. This will help the user in focusing more on the task at hand rather than the weight of peer pressure at performing faster.
With my interaction design prototype for Citizen Science in recording animal census data, I narrowed down my broad range of species to that of fishes, particularly to the salmon, which is a keystone species in the Pacific Northwest. This app is geared towards fishermen who could then report the amount of fish they caught. Beneficence can also apply in this case as the user might become frustrated with the app’s design or functions. One of the risks that may occur come from the motivation factor of the app, where after submitting the data of the amount of fish caught, a bonus reward would tell the user where to go to catch more fish. However this may not be accurate in every scenario and could leave the user feeling frustrated. While the benefits may be more general in the sense that the data the user provides will help researchers and scientists in determining the health of the Pacific Northwest waters, it is not something that is immediately beneficial to the user. This in itself might feel like a loss to the user as they might think that there is nothing substantial about the app. However, the deciding factor for this case is that the overall goal of the prototype was to design an app for Citizen Science in order for the end users to easily report data on animal census so that it may help scientists with determining the health of the ecosystem. This condition is met as the user can easily use the interaction design to input data as the location function will help the users in recognizing the species of fish they have caught by limiting the species of fishes specific to that region. While the user may feel like that they do not benefit immediately, they are providing crucial information and data about the overall health of the environment where they fish, which in turns help scientists and researchers in assisting the ecosystem so that there is an abundance of fishes for the fishers to fish in the future. In this case, the benefits outweigh the risks as the risks caused are not harmful enough for the interaction design to be stopped from progressing.
Work Cited
Ryan, Kenneth John, Joseph V. Brady, Robert E. Cooke, Dorothy I. Height,Albert R. Jonsen, Patricia King, Karen Lebacqz, David W. Louisell, Donald W. Seldin, Elliot Stellar, and Robert H. Turtle. “The Belmont Report.” HHS.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2017.
Powered by WPeMatico
