Three Ways of Understanding Human Vulnerability for Better, More Responsible Tech Design

What is it about?

In this article, the authors—Janna van Grunsven, Naomi Jacobs, Bart A. Kamphorst, Michaela Honauer, Bouke van Balen, Caroline Bollen, Matthew Dennis, Anna Puzio, and Birna van Riemsdijk—examine how “vulnerability” is understood in the design of assistive technologies and responsible computing systems. Drawing from philosophical traditions and critical disability studies, they introduce three distinct ways to view vulnerability: Individualist Perspective emphasizes vulnerability as an inherent trait of a person—something they “have.” Relational Perspective defines vulnerability as emerging between people and their environment—something that happens through interactions. Enactivist Perspective sees vulnerability as tied to how individuals actively make sense of and engage with the world.

Featured Image

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The authors argue that relying solely on one way of understanding vulnerability can lead to blind spots or unintended consequences: a design meant to help might, in fact, worsen or create new vulnerabilities. Instead, the article recommends that designers and engineers consider all three perspectives together. Doing so allows them to critically reflect on how their choices shape the experience of vulnerable users in different contexts. The combined view serves as a heuristic tool: it helps teams articulate and consider multiple dimensions of vulnerability throughout the design process. To put this approach into practice, the authors call for: Participatory design practices that include diverse stakeholders and viewpoints. Clear distribution of responsibility within design teams, so that each perspective is actively considered and integrated. Encouragement of creative and flexible thinking, especially when designing assistive technologies that aim to support vulnerable individuals. Overall, the article urges a richer, more thoughtful approach to designing responsibly—one that goes beyond fixing a problem and instead attends to the complex, lived realities of people.