2025
van Grunsven, Janna; Jacobs, Naomi; Kamphorst, Bart A.; Honauer, Michaela; van Balen, Bouke; Bollen, Caroline; Dennis, Matthew; Puzio, Anna; van Riemsdijk, Birna
Three Perspectives on Human Vulnerability: Enriching Responsible Computing Design Processes Journal Article
In: ACM Journal on Responsible Computing, vol. 2, iss. 4, no. 15, pp. 1-21, 2025.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Digital technologies, Human Vulnerability
@article{nokey,
title = {Three Perspectives on Human Vulnerability: Enriching Responsible Computing Design Processes},
author = {Janna van Grunsven and Naomi Jacobs and Bart A. Kamphorst and Michaela Honauer and Bouke van Balen and Caroline Bollen and Matthew Dennis and Anna Puzio and Birna van Riemsdijk},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/wp-content/uploads/article-JvG-ea.pdf},
doi = {doi.org/10.1145/3748731},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-10-27},
urldate = {2025-10-27},
journal = {ACM Journal on Responsible Computing},
volume = {2},
number = {15},
issue = {4},
pages = {1-21},
abstract = {In response to the increasing interest in (designing for) human vulnerability within the field of responsible computing, we articulate the multi-dimensionality of the concept of vulnerability to deepen and enrich the conversations about the relationship between vulnerabilities and the design of assistive technologies. Drawing on different philosophical traditions and insights from critical disability studies, we introduce three perspectives on vulnerability–the individualist, relationalist, and enactivist perspectives–that each emphasize a different aspect of what it means to be vulnerable. We argue that, for engineers in the field of responsible computing, it is key to be able to adopt all three perspectives and explicitly and critically reflect upon what each perspective or combination of perspectives brings to the design context at hand. When used in conjunction, the three perspectives together can mitigate the risk of creating technological interventions that may aim at ameliorating vulnerabilities but instead exacerbate or create new ones. To move forward, we call for further reflections and practical considerations on how to best integrate the three perspectives on vulnerability into participatory design practices; how to distribute responsibilities within design teams to ensure that all perspectives are genuinely adopted and engaged with; and how to foster creative, out-of- the- box thinking for assistive technology design.},
keywords = {Digital technologies, Human Vulnerability},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In response to the increasing interest in (designing for) human vulnerability within the field of responsible computing, we articulate the multi-dimensionality of the concept of vulnerability to deepen and enrich the conversations about the relationship between vulnerabilities and the design of assistive technologies. Drawing on different philosophical traditions and insights from critical disability studies, we introduce three perspectives on vulnerability–the individualist, relationalist, and enactivist perspectives–that each emphasize a different aspect of what it means to be vulnerable. We argue that, for engineers in the field of responsible computing, it is key to be able to adopt all three perspectives and explicitly and critically reflect upon what each perspective or combination of perspectives brings to the design context at hand. When used in conjunction, the three perspectives together can mitigate the risk of creating technological interventions that may aim at ameliorating vulnerabilities but instead exacerbate or create new ones. To move forward, we call for further reflections and practical considerations on how to best integrate the three perspectives on vulnerability into participatory design practices; how to distribute responsibilities within design teams to ensure that all perspectives are genuinely adopted and engaged with; and how to foster creative, out-of- the- box thinking for assistive technology design.