Proefschrift

102 4 CHAPTER 4 4.8 VALIDATION RESULTS VALUE DELIBERATION PROCESS We chose not to increase the sample size by holding additional value deliberation sessions to validate our results, because inviting laymen for this study will not provide additional qualitative data. In addition, we conducted an extra round of validation and invited four experts - who have not been part of the expert panel - to reflect on the results. Two experts responded and have reviewed the results and reflected on the usability for their field. Both experts indicated that the results are usable for their line of work and can apply the results in their work (see questionnaire in appendix B). 4.9 CONCLUSION The value elicitation conducted using the Value Deliberation process not only shows that value discussion leads to changes in perception of the acceptability of alternatives in a scenario of Autonomous Weapon System deployment, it also gives insight into which values are deemed important and highlights that trust in the decision-making of an Autonomous Weapon System is crucial. As a next step in the interpretation stage of the Glass Box framework, norms and requirements can be derived based on this value elicitation. These requirements will feed into the observation stage as observable elements to monitor and verify. The review stage is required after deployment as an accountability process of which findings should feed back into the interpretation stage for a next deployment of an autonomous system and thereby close the loop between the stages. The value discussion and evaluation disclosed that not all applications of Autonomous Weapon Systems in a mission context provide trust to military experts in the decisionmaking of the Autonomous Weapon System. Human decision-making is in some cases more trusted and preferred. In general, the context in which an Autonomous Weapon System is deployed impacts the meaning and weight people attribute to the values associated with the Autonomous Weapon System. The findings of this study imply that deliberate value discussion influences people perceptions of their values related to Autonomous Weapon Systems. More general, active participation in a value discussion leads to a conscious, and sometimes unconscious, change in people’s preferences of alternatives. This could be beneficial in other areas than Autonomous Weapon Systems for policy making and citizen participation in local and national public administration. For example, to get citizen views on a municipal plan for the redevelopment of a local park or on a national level get input for nitrogen reduction policy. The application of the online Value Deliberation process method is not limited to Autonomous Weapon Systems and can be used in other areas as well.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw