A Taxonomy of Design Futures Processes for Ethical Reflection on Technologies

Paper Title

A Taxonomy of Design Futures Processes for Ethical Reflection on Technologies

Publication Info

• Topic area: Ethical reflection on emerging technologies through Design Futures practices.
• Keywords: Design Futures, ethical reflection, speculative design, design fiction, experiential futures, taxonomy, HCI, participatory design, future-making, technology ethics.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: There is limited systematic knowledge on how Design Futures practices are structured to foster ethical reflection on technologies. Existing approaches lack clarity on processes, methodological choices, and how ethical reasoning is shaped.
• Significance: As digital technologies increasingly impact society, addressing ethical concerns early in their development is critical to mitigate risks such as bias, privacy violations, and surveillance. Design Futures offers potential for anticipatory ethical reflection but remains underexplored methodologically.
• Motivation and related work: Prior work in speculative design, design fiction, and experiential futures has focused on creating alternative sociotechnical narratives but lacks systematic guidance on processes. Recent studies, such as Cordova et al., have begun to address methodological gaps but do not fully explore ethical reflection or the diversity of Design Futures practices.

Solution

• Proposed approach: Development of a Taxonomy of Design Futures Processes for Ethical Reflection, based on a scoping review of 32 case studies.
• Novelty:
  1. Identification of key stages, actions, and roles in Design Futures processes.
  2. Categorization of Future Manifestations (e.g., Storyworlds, Scenarios, Artefacts, Concepts) and their influence on ethical reflection.
  3. Definition of four Process Archetypes for structuring Design Futures activities.
  4. Mapping of Ethics Conceptualizations (Ethical Risks, Ethical & Societal Implications, Values) and their relationship to processes and outcomes.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Conducted a Scoping Literature Review (SLR) using PRISMA-ScR guidelines across Scopus and ACM Digital Library.
  • Screened 836 records, resulting in 32 eligible case studies.
  • Analyzed case studies using reflexive thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns in processes, participant roles, and outcomes.
  • Synthesized findings into a taxonomy with two dimensions: Process (stages, actions, actors, Future Manifestations) and Outcome (Ethics Conceptualizations, Ethics Breadth).

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • Four Process Archetypes: Researcher-led Exploration, Reflection-driven Iterative, Collaborative Generation, and Researcher-led Process.
  • Future Manifestations influence ethical reflection: Artefacts often elicit Ethical Risks, while Scenarios support broader Ethical Implications and Values.
  • Ethics Conceptualizations vary across processes: Ethical Risks (16 studies), Ethical & Societal Implications (11 studies), and Values (5 studies).
• Advantage over baselines:
  • Provides structured guidance for designing Design Futures activities tailored to specific ethical goals.
  • Clarifies how different forms of Future Manifestations and participant roles shape ethical reasoning.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Based on 32 case studies published between 2014 and 2024, involving diverse Design Futures practices such as Speculative Design, Design Fiction, and Experiential Futures.
  • Evaluated processes and outcomes using thematic analysis of methodological details and ethical reflections.
• Limitations and future work:
  • Limited granularity in reporting of processes and outcomes in reviewed studies.
  • Focused only on published case studies; future work could include grey literature or author interviews.
  • Taxonomy is a first attempt and not exhaustive; further refinement and expansion are needed.

Summary

This paper presents a Taxonomy of Design Futures Processes for Ethical Reflection, derived from a scoping review of 32 case studies. The taxonomy maps how stages, actions, actors, and Future Manifestations interact to shape ethical reasoning, offering four Process Archetypes and three Ethics Conceptualizations. Artefacts tend to elicit Ethical Risks, while Scenarios support broader Ethical Implications and Values. The taxonomy serves as a practical tool for researchers and practitioners to design Design Futures activities and advance methodological understanding. Future work should address reporting gaps and expand the taxonomy's scope.