Alissa Antle visited the Digital Democracies Institute to discuss her work that has developed new research methods concerning biowearable devices and youth. This method for “participatory design ethics” emerged from Alissa and her co-investigators’ desire to involve youth participants in researching ethical issues related to the design of biowearable technology. They wanted to address the problems related to the fact that biowearable devices such as fitness trackers, smart watches, virtual reality headsets, etc. are not designed with due consideration to how they might impact children and youth, despite the fact that their use is becoming increasingly common among this demographic. For instance, 33% of youth under 24 years old own some kind of self-tracking device in the UK. Apple introduced an Apple watch family service that is targeted towards children 5 years old & up.
Alissa began by highlighting some of the challenges associated with biowearable design that are particular to minors. For example, as young people develop into adults they are developing their sense of self and this process can be quite sensitive to outside influences, creating a vulnerable period for many youth. She noted that mental health considerations often arise during this period, for example, one-half of all such conditions are established by age 14 and three-quarters by age 25. Considering these statistics, participating in the cultural phenomenon of the quantification of the self tied to biowearable technology that promises well-being but delivers something else needs to be examined. Alissa noted that many apps promise well-being — “the presence of positive emotions, fulfilment, functioning and resilience”, but in reality however, “they actually focus on improving performance and productivity.” In fact, there are several issues related to this problem that Alissa outlined such as:
- more information about one’s physical activities and/or physiological processes does not necessarily support well-being;
- economic models do not reward well-being in terms of the development of healthy behaviours and no longer needing the device; but rather follow a model that encourages ongoing use and dependency on devices for support;
- products designed for adults may not be suitable for minors, for a variety of reasons;
- the lack of governance protecting minors in relation to such devices; and
- the lack of knowledge about potential negative impacts of biowearables on minors.
The latter concern goes beyond the widely-discussed data-centric issues of consent, confidentiality and security. Of course they are still present, however “negative impacts on child development are not yet being looked at in design and bioethics.” This led Alissa to identify six sensitive areas in youth personal development that may be threatened over time in relation to biowearables: one’s sense of identity; personhood; autonomy in learning and growing around decision-making; agency and questions of when to act; becoming the authority of truth about oneself; and authentically being present & enjoyment in the face of addictive behaviours encouraged by one’s devices.
To include youth in her research, and to support them to develop critical technology literacy that includes exploring these issues, Alissa and co-authors began to ask questions: “how can we support youth to be critically aware of potential negative impacts of biowearables? Can a workshop enable youth participants to critically reflect on ethical issues related to biowearables during the process of making their own device?” Their approach drew upon constructionism, a theory that explains learning “through construction of sharable artifacts that can manifest understanding and form the basis of critical reflection.” Thus, their workshop design included opportunities for their youth participants 12-14 to reflect through discussion of issues that arose during the design and building of a biowearable prototype, scaffolded by key decisions points in the prototyping process, and informed by the use of design “ethics” cards that introduce these issues relative to the youth participants and to key decisions in their prototyping process.
Participants built their biowearable devices using the prototype kit Alissa’s team created and provided through Canada Post, which included the parts to assemble a pinwheel that could spin at different speeds, and light box with a range of patterns and colours of lights. Alissa noted that in her observations of these online workshops, followed up with video and chat records and expanded through analysis of the participants’ online design journals, she found a variety of evidence that the participants critically reflected on potential impacts of different technical decisions during their making process, sometimes with support from facilitators. “By the end, all but one of the participants was able to explain their prototype and potential ethical considerations, why they changed certain designs, and how it impacts their own lives”, Alissa explained. Another participant said, “there are a LOT of moral issues with biowearables”. Others related problems with biowearables to video game addiction. One participant noted how a biowearable indicating that you’re stressed can actually make you more stressed.
Alissa noted that this research in progress contributes several things to the discussion on youth and biowearables. First, it can provide some prospective design guidance to industry on ethical issues with biowearables, particularly relative to child development. This workshop is a “step towards a participatory design ethics methodology” and can be used as a generalizable framework for future research in design ethics, participatory ethics and supporting critical technical literacy. This is an exciting development in design and research methodology for us at the DDI, and we look forward to seeing how this project continues to unfold.