Consequences of Computing:
A Framework for Teaching
Importance of the Dimensions - Page 12 of 36
We include under the category of "cultural" divisions all those groupings we recognize that cut across local group, organizational, and even national boundaries. Thus, gender, race, class (e.g. middle, working, etc.), and many reference groups (e.g. 'hackers', 'computer professionals' etc.) are, for our purposes, all examples of cultural groups.
These cultural groupings need to be considered by computer professionals when designing and implementing systems. For instance, in western societies there are documentable differences in interaction styles between men and women, and some suggestion that men and women approach human-computer interaction differently [24, 33]. Designers need to take these varieties of style into account when designing interfaces or systems that promote communication between individuals.
It is also clear that different regional cultures (e.g. European vs. Asian) think about ethical issues from different perspectives. The issues of property rights or privacy are viewed differently in these societies, and in a marketplace that is increasingly global, designers of systems likely to be used in multiple cultures need to understand the different approaches they take [52]. This recognition need not embrace a radical relativism (e.g. whatever your local culture recommends is right), but an awareness of the differences that do exist will help designers to pinpoint disagreements in design more quickly. Some facility with ethical reasoning (see the section on ethical principles and skills) will help the designer negotiate the right thing to do.
We divide our society (or others' societies) in these ways because they in fact help us understand the differences in interests, approaches, and assumptions that often divide us. A recognition of the cultural differences that do exist (rather than a simple reliance on stereotypes) will help designers produce and implement systems that are more successful, more widely accepted, and perhaps even safer when used in other cultures than that of the designer.
Institutional sectors
Different institutions within a culture or a nation will have
different interests, preferences, approaches, and assumptions as they address particular
ethical issues in computing. Governmental agencies, business societies, scientific
organizations, charitable or non-profit institutions, professional societies, and labor
organizations will all differ in their interests and concerns about a particular technology.
For instance, work on public agencies (city and state administrations, national agencies) has
made it clear that the financial modeling they rely on to predict economic outlooks and budgets
are likely not instances of 'prediction', but rather instances of using computer models to
press the case for decisions that have already been made [32]. To the extent that this
modeling presses its case by using the aura of legitimacy that adheres to high technology,
computer professionals could be thought complicit in whatever deceptions occur.
In addition, any particular technology is likely to be used differently by different institutions, and their interests in regulation of them will be different. It is, in part, this sort of institutional bias that has fed the flames of the recent debate over cryptography and government access to keys [13, 46]. And commentators may easily mistake the motivations of government agencies in this debate if they do not recognize these differences in approach. Computing professionals will likely be dealing with many of these kinds of institutions in their careers, and should be aware that they do not all have similar interests in or approaches to technology.
