Ethics and Power Dynamics in Playful Technology for Animals

Abstract

Technology (digital or otherwise) is a great enabler; it bridges gaps and opens doors and, in the process, alters the reality within which it and its users exist. As technology aimed at non-human animals is becoming commonplace, questions about its efficacy and the ethical implications of its use are becoming ever more pertinent. To explore these issues, we conducted a workshop in which speculative design was used as a means of debating ways through which play, a widespread phenomenon across animal species, can be used as a tool for enabling interspecies communication. We describe the context for this discussion, the methods used, and present a set of speculative designs that illustrate aspects of ethics, equality, and appropriate play in order to provoke further reflection and discussion. CCS CONCEPTS• Social and professional topics -User characteristics • Humancentered computing -Interaction design -Interaction design theory, concepts and paradigms

Why Decenter Images of the Future Matter: Absences, Alternatives, and Accomplishments Challenging Future Visions

“…Rather than observe the “pull of the present,” “the push or the past” (Ferganani, 2020; Inuyatallah, 2008), or “the pulsion for progress” (Marx 1987), we advocate for a careful exploration of images of the future, that not just observe the elements around a temporal triangle, but the placing around systems that are implicit in the images of the future and technoscientific discourses, using the critical perspectives of STS and the creative rigors of FTS in an analytical act of resistance to centralized futures, such as hyped technological narratives (Milne, 2020; Vinsel and Russel, 2020), trendy methodological innovations (Dalhgren et al, 2022), or promising discourses that reinforce the current power dynamics of futures (e.g., French et al, 2021; Irwin, 2019).…”

Responsible ACI: Expanding the Influence of Animal-Computer Interaction

“…Further concerns over indirect unintentional harms have been raised by researchers noting how classification models trained on large amounts of web-scraped data suffer from human bias attributing negative behavioural traits to animals based on superficial characteristics, such as coat colour [16]. More generally, ACI researchers have been mindful of the interspecies differences, communication barriers [33] and power dynamics [19] which characterise human-animal relations and which are likely to result in technologies that serve the interests of humans rather than those of animals.…”

An Ethics Toolkit to Support Animal-Centered Research and Design

“…The framework covered four fundamental aspects, requiring: that the research be relevant to partaking animals as well as their species; that the welfare, both the integrity and the autonomy, of partaking animals be prioritized over societal interests; that partaking animals, including any humans, be treated impartially regardless of species; that the animals consent be garnered, both from those responsible for their well-being ( mediated consent ) and from the animals themselves ( contingent consent ), through expert monitoring of their behaviors and unconstrained choices during research procedures ( 8 ). The importance of being especially attentive to animals needs and wants when designing interactive technology was discussed by French et al ( 12 ) who used speculative design to explore ways in which interspecies communication could be enabled by tech-supported playful activities. The speculative designs prompted a series of reflections related to ethical issues and power dynamics arising between humans and animals during play.…”

“…The speculative designs prompted a series of reflections related to ethical issues and power dynamics arising between humans and animals during play. The researchers observed how, as the “ top predator(s) in every engagement” ( 12 ), in their interactions with animals, humans have an overwhelming influence irrespective of their intent, such that equitable relationships with non-human animals would be hardly possible. While they argued that ” humans should start listening a bit more” ( 12 ) as part of their duty of care toward animals, they did not clarify what designers should be listening to or how.…”

“…Overall, on the one hand, contributions to the ethical discourse on ACI have provided normative frameworks (e.g., Mancini ( 3 ); Väätäjä and Pesonen ( 9 ); Hirskyj-Douglas and Read ( 10 ), Mancini ( 8 )) for researchers to apply when designing and conducting research involving animals. On the other hand, contributions have cautioned researchers about the challenge of undertaking ACI research with animals without allowing human interests to prevail, exhorting them to carefully consider and manage their own bias (e.g., Grillaert and Camenzind ( 11 ), French et al ( 12 )). However, tools are still lacking which could enable interaction design researchers, who wish to conform to an animal-centered ethics, to identify and manage their own biases during the research process, by reflecting on their own values and on issues that arise as they engage with their animal participants in practice.…”