Abstract

Information systems development (ISD) frequently involves value conflicts (e.g., reconciling compliance requirements with user autonomy), thereby requiring developers to engage in moral decision-making regarding what is desirable, right, and just. Drawing on the theory of moral development, this study examines how developers—whose moral reasoning emphasizes self-interest (pre-conventional), maintaining social norms (conventional), or higher-order principles (post-conventional)—navigate these conflicts. We identify varying moral decision-making patterns among developers at the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels, structured around four interrelated themes: (1) problem framing, (2) solution conceptualization, (3) responsibility orientation, and (4) duty fulfillment. Our analysis further indicates the pivotal role of developers’ responsibility orientation in guiding moral decision-making. Specifically, this orientation encompasses how developers attribute causal responsibility (e.g., assigning blame) in framing problems, allocate accountability (e.g., taking ownership) in conceptualizing solutions, and balance obligations (e.g., honoring commitments) in fulfilling their duties. Thus, our study shows how distinct responsibility orientations among IS developers at the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels critically shape their navigation of value conflicts, ultimately influencing project outcomes.

DOI

10.17705/1jais.00949

Download

Share

COinS