Internet protocol development is a social process, and resulting protocols are shaped by their developers’ politics and values. This article argues that the work of protocol development (and more broadly, infrastructure design) poses barriers to developers’ reflection upon values and politics in protocol design. A participant observation of a team developing internet protocols revealed that difficulties defining the stakeholders in an infrastructure and tensions between local and global viewpoints both complicated values reflection. Further, Internet architects tended to equate a core value of interoperability with values neutrality. The article describes how particular work practices within infrastructure development overcame these challenges by engaging developers in praxis: situated, lived experience of the social nature of technology.
AlsheikhT.RodeJ. A.LindleyS. E.. 2011. “(Whose) Value-sensitive Design: A Study of Long-distance Relationships in an Arabic Cultural Context.” In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 75–84. New York: ACM.
2.
BorningA.MullerM.. 2012. “Next Steps for Value Sensitive Design.” In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1125–34. New York: ACM.
3.
BramanS.2013. “The Geopolitical vs. the Network Political: Internet Designers and Governance.” International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics9 (3): 277–96.
4.
ClarkD.2013. The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
5.
ColemanE. G.2012. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
DeNardisL.2009. Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
7.
DeNardisL.2012. “Hidden Levers of Internet Control.” Information, Communication & Society15 (5): 720–38.
8.
DourishP.2004. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Context.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing8 (1): 19–30.
9.
EdwardsP. N.BowkerG. C.JacksonS. J.WilliamsR.. 2009. “Introduction: An Agenda for Infrastructure Studies.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems10 (5): 364–74.
10.
FeenbergA.2014. The Philosophy of Praxis: Marx, Lukács and the Frankfurt School. London, UK: Verso.
11.
FeynmanR. P.1955. “The Value of Science.” Engineering and Science19 (3): 13–15.
12.
FlanaganM.HoweD. C.NissenbaumH.. 2005. “Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-oriented Game Design.” In Proc CHI, 751–60. New York.
13.
FlanaganM.NissenbaumH.HoweD. C.. 2008. “Embodying Values in Technology: Theory and Practice.” In Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, edited by van den HovenJ.WeckertJ., 322–53. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FleischmannK. R.2013. Information and Human Values. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
FriedmanB.HendryD. G.. 2012. “The Envisioning Cards: A Toolkit for Catalyzing Humanistic and Technical Imaginations.” In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1145–48. New York: ACM.
17.
FriedmanB.KahnP. H.BorningA.. 2006. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Applications, Vol. 5, edited by GallettaD.ZhangP., 348–72. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
18.
FriedmanB.NissenbaumH.. 1997. “Bias in Computer Systems.” In Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, edited by FriedmanB., 21–40. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GillespieT.2006. “Engineering a Principle “End-to-end” in the Design of the Internet.” Social Studies of Science36 (3): 427–57.
20.
HoustonL.JacksonS. J.RosnerD. K.AhmedS. I.YoungM.KangL.. 2016. “Values in Repair.” In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1403–14. New York: ACM.
21.
HughesT. P. 2012. “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Anniversary ed., edited byBijkerW. E.HughesT. P.PinchT., 45–76. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
JafariNaimiN.NathanL.HargravesI.. 2015. “Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the Service of Values.” Design Issues31 (4): 91–104.
23.
JohnsonD. G.2011. “Software Agents, Anticipatory Ethics, and Accountability.” In The Growing Gap between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight, edited by MarchantG. E.AllenbyB. R.HerkertJ. R., 61–76). The Netherlands: Springer.
24.
KeltyC. M.2014. “The Fog of Freedom.” In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by GillespieT.BoczkowskiP. J.FootK. A., 195–220). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25.
KnobelC. P.BowkerG. C.. 2011, 7. “Values in Design.” Communications of the ACM54 (7): 26–28.
26.
LatourB.2008. “A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk).” In Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society, edited by HackneF.GlynneJ.MintoV., 2–10. Falmouth, UK: Universal.
27.
LeDantecC. A. L.PooleE. S.WycheS. P.. 2009. “Values as Lived Experience: Evolving Value Sensitive Design in Support of Value Discovery.” In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 1141–50. Boston, MA: ACM.
28.
LeeC. P.DourishP.MarkG.. 2006. “The Human Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure.” In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 483–92. New York: ACM.
29.
NathanL. P.KlasnjaP. V.FriedmanB.. 2007. “Value Scenarios: A Technique for Envisioning Systemic Effects of New Technologies.” In CHI ‘07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2585–90. New York: ACM.
30.
OudshoornN.RommesE.StienstraM.. 2004. “Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies.” Science, Technology, & Human Values29 (1): 30–63.
31.
PalfreyJ.GasserU.. 2012. Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems. New York: Basic Books.
32.
PinchT. J.BijkerW. E.. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science14 (3): 399–441.
33.
PipekV.WulfV.. 2009. “Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems10 (5): 447–73.
34.
RattoM.2011. “Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life.” The Information Society27 (4): 252–60.
35.
RibesD.2017. “Notes on the Concept of Data Interoperability: Cases from an Ecology of AIDS Research Infrastructures.” In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2017), 1514–26. Portland, OR: ACM.
36.
RibesD.FinholtT.. 2009. “The Long Now of Technology Infrastructure: Articulating Tensions in Development.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems10 (5): 375–98.
ScloveR. E.1995. Democracy and Technology. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
39.
SengersP.BoehnerK.DavidS.KayeJ.. 2005. “Reflective Design.” In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, 49–58. New York: ACM.
40.
ShiltonK.2013. “Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design.” Science, Technology, & Human Values38 (3): 374–97.
41.
ShiltonK.2015. “Anticipatory Ethics for a Future Internet: Analyzing Values during the Design of an Internet Infrastructure.” Science and Engineering Ethics21 (1): 1–18.
42.
ShiltonK.BurkeJ. A.claffyk. c.ZhangL.. 2016. “Anticipating Policy and Social Implications of Named Data Networking.” Communications of the ACM59 (12): 92–101.
43.
ShiltonK.KoepflerJ. A.. 2013. “Making Space for Values: Communication & Values Levers in a Virtual Team.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T 2013), edited by WolfgangP.ChristineS.MichaelK.JohannS., 110–19. Munich, Germany: ACM.
44.
SnyderJ.ShiltonK.AndersonS.. 2016. “Observing the Materiality of Values in Information Systems Research.” In Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016), 2017–26. Kauai, HI: IEEE.
45.
SolumL. B.2009. “Models of Internet Governance.” In Internet Governance: Infrastructure and Institutions, edited by BygraveL. A.BingJ., 48–91. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
SuchmanL.1997. “Do Categories Have Politics? The Language/Action Perspective Reconsidered.” In Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, edited by FriedmanB., 91–105. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
47.
VallorS.2016. Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
VertesiJ.2014. “Seamful Spaces Heterogeneous Infrastructures in Interaction.” Science, Technology, & Human Values39 (2): 264–84.
50.
WinnerL.1980. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus109 (1): 121–36.
51.
WinnerL.1989. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
WoelferJ. P.HendryD. G.. 2010. “Homeless Young People’s Experiences with Information Systems: Life and Work in a Community Technology Center.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1291–300. New York: ACM.
