A Four Point Guidance to Analyse Ethical Issues in Serious Game Development

Transcription

1 A Four Point Guidance to Analyse Ethical Issues in Serious Game Development Vivekananda-Schmidt, P 1.; Romano, D 2. 1 Corresponding Author: Pirashanthie Vivekananda-Schmidt, The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Beechhill Road, S10 2RX. p.vivekananda-schmidt@shef.ac.uk. 2 Senior Lecturer, Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 211 Portobello street, Sheffield S1 4DP. D.Romano@Sheffield.ac.uk. Abstract This paper presents a four point guidance to analyse the ethical issues in the development of serious games. We demonstrate its application using an example of recording user data during play of a serious game for healthcare trainees. We recommend further testing of this guidance for wider applicability and relevance. Background Until now there is no published guidance on how to conduct an ethical analysis to consider ethical issues related to Serious Game development. With regard to this, medicine and healthcare practice is more advanced. For medical and Healthcare trainees at both undergraduate and postgraduate level of training, it is a core part of their training to learn ethical theories, professional guidance and ethical analysis frameworks. Such training aims to guide the trainees development of ethical professional practice. Two popular tools in medical and healthcare ethics are the four principles framework and the four quadrant framework for ethical analysis. The Four Principles Framework The four principles framework discusses the four pillars for ethical practice which are the principle of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice 1. This paper cannot be utilized for a full discussion of these four principles and the reader is referred to the original work 1. However, a brief outline is presented here to engage the reader. Autonomy refers to the users right and freedom of choice to have access to information and based on this information the user should have the freedom to make the choice that they deem is right for them. Beneficence and non-maleficence respectively refer to the principles of leaving the user better off than before and to not causing harm through the planned interventions. In the latter this could mean for example, compromising users right for privacy through design compromise in a game. Justice is a complex principle, but for our purpose will involve taking a course of action that considers all stakeholders and maximizes benefits and preferences to all stakeholders. The Point Guidance for computer science ethical dilemmas The four quadrant framework 2 for ethical analysis in medicine outlines the following four quadrants.

2 a) Indications for medical intervention Establishing a diagnosis, options or treatment and potential outcomes related to these options b) Establishing the patient s preferences this involves assessing patient s ability to make decisions and establishing patient s wishes accordingly c) Quality of life similar to beneficence and non-maleficence this is the principle of whether the intervention (in medicine usually the treatment) will result in improving patient s quality of life d) Contextual features refer to religious, cultural and legal factors that can impact on the decision As part of a Digital Social Research funded project we adapted both the four principles framework and the four quadrants framework from medical ethics, for application in analyzing the ethical issues relevant to serious game development. We modified and combined the key principles and quadrants to the following: Indications for the need to develop intervention This is where one provides a rationale to justify the development of a new resource; In computer science and serious games the patient could be equated to the user or client. We could adapt the Patient Preferences quadrant to establishing stakeholder preferences through participatory design, and opinion gathering; however, in this case in order to serve the user well, expert opinions (for example in content development) are just as important. The quality of life and contextual features can be modified and combined to develop contextual considerations which will include consideration of existing work, guidelines and legal factors that will impact on the intervention planned. Ensure autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence in any developmental work Considering the four principles discussed above and the four quadrants framework above, for dilemmas relating to serious games and virtual reality, what may be useful is the following modified framework Indications for the need to develop intervention Establishing stakeholder preferences and expert opinions Contextual considerations Ensure autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence This is where one provides a rationale to justify the development of a new resource/intervention/action plan Through participatory design, opinion gathering Existing evidence, guidelines and relevant legal factors The intervention or proposed work makes a positive contribution and does not cause a significant negative effect on stakeholders; maximizes user benefit and choices Figure 1 A 4-point guidance to resolve ethical dilemmas for serious game development We demonstrate the application of this 4-point guidance in the ethical issue of recording game play

3 of users in the context of serious games developed for healthcare trainees. Application of the 4-point guidance in the Ethical issue of recording the game play of users who play a serious game developed for healthcare trainees Indications for the need to develop intervention Establishing stakeholder preferences Contextual Considerations Ensure autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence This is where one provides a rationale to justify why the game play should be recorded. There needs to be clear rationale justifiable to an external body as to why the data is being recorded. It is for example, not good enough to say, in case it becomes useful for future work! It is worth outlining the benefits of introducing this (i.e., the recording) and the disadvantages. Who is the benefit for? Who will be disadvantaged? Is the disadvantage acceptable or significant? So for example, anonymous recording disadvantages the person less, than confidential but nonanonymous recording where the player maybe identifiable to a small group managing the project. In relation to this, another key question is, can one justify the process selected to implement the recording of user data? In this case this could involve decisions around whether everyone is recorded or only a randomly chosen sample; whether the recording can be anonymous or whether the player needs to be identified? Through participatory design, and opinion gathering Stakeholder data collected here, as part of the Digital Social Research funded project 3, indicates that autonomy takes precedence; disclosure and giving player the choice of whether or not their data is recorded is important. However, this conclusion can change depending on the context, culture and purpose of recording. Existing evidence, guidelines and relevant legal factors UK Data protection Act (1998; purpose of storage, good practice and length of storage; informed consent); do all stakeholders need access to the recorded data (see next point below). How much data needs to be gathered? Can this be for a finite number of users or does this need to be on an ongoing basis? The intervention or proposed work makes a positive contribution and does not cause a significant negative effect on stakeholders; maximizes user benefit and choices Not adhering to identifying appropriate indications (as above) and compromising user autonomy through poor disclosure can negatively affect beneficence (level of benefit experienced by the user). Design considerations should include disclosing full information

4 and giving user the choice of whether or not they wish their play trace/data to be recorded and to be able to play the game without having their data recorded. However, the latter will depend on the context. So for example, if the data is being recorded to identify necessary information to develop the game and there is a large potential pool of players of this game, it may be sufficient to record a randomly selected sample of users who are happy for their play traces to be recorded. However, it is possible that the play is recorded to identify minimum knowledge or skills competence (i.e., the game is for assessment). If this is the case then all players need to be recorded and only players with below acceptable levels of competence need to be identified. Figure 2 Applying the guidance (in Figure 1) to the ethical issue of recording user data Strengths and Weaknesses There is little to guide serious game developers when considering how to design and develop games ethically. This work aims to address this gap partially. The 4 point guidance was developed by undertaking a literature review of healthcare ethics and identifying the two popular frameworks for ethical analysis in the healthcare literature. Strength of this guidance is that it is adapted from an existing framework deemed useful by another group of professionals (the doctors). It has been tested somewhat through application in the case study described in this paper. However, it is not yet tested in a range of ethical dilemmas in computer science or serious gaming. Currently there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate that the guidance is purposeful in assisting the analysis of ethical dilemmas in serious games and ICT. This paper demonstrated that user autonomy takes precedence when recording user data. Nothing justifies recording user data without clearly stating the purpose, method and gaining permission from the user. Are there other instances where user autonomy trumps the other points in the proposed guidance? This paper is unable to answer this without further investigation of this question. Furthermore, the acceptability of this 4-point guidance for professionals in different cultures and specialties is currently unknown and requires further research. Further work should investigate the applicability of our findings in different cultures and contexts and test the proposed guidance for its applicability in various ethical dilemmas in computer science. Attributions: This work was developed as a result of a grant from the Digital Social Research Community (Oxford E-Research Centre; ESRC) to investigate the ethical issues in developing serious games. Reference List (1) Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; (2) Sokol DK. The "four quadrants" approach to clinical ethics case analysis; an application and review. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008; 34: (3) Vivekananda-Schmidt P, Romano D. Ethical Considerations in Developing Game Characters and

5 recording play traces: Developing Guidelines for the Developers. Computers in Education Submitted, April 2013.

6