A variety of approaches have appeared in academic literature and in design practice representing “ethics-first” methods. These approaches typically focus on clarifying the normative dimensions of design, or outlining strategies for explicitly incorporating values into design. While this body of literature has developed considerably over the last 20 years, two themes central to the endeavour of ethics and values in design (E + VID) have yet to be systematically discussed in relation to each other: (a) designer agency, and (b) the strength of normative claims informing the design process. To address this gap, we undertook a structured review of leading E + VID approaches and critiques, and classified them according to their positions on normative strength, and views regarding designer agency. We identified 18 distinct approaches and 13 critiques that met the inclusion criteria for our review. Included papers were distributed across the spectrum of views regarding normative strength, and we found that no approaches and only one critique represented a view characteristic of “low” designer agency. We suggest that the absence of “low” designer agency approaches results in the neglect of crucial influences on design as targets of intervention by designers. We conclude with suggestions for future research that might illuminate strategies to achieve ethical design in information mature societies, and argue that without attending to the tensions raised by balancing normatively “strong” visions of the future with limitations imposed on designer agency in corporate-driven design settings, “meaningful” ethical design will continue to encounter challenges in practice.

在学术文献和设计实践中出现了各种代表“道德第一”方法的方法。这些方法通常侧重于阐明设计的规范维度，或概述将价值观明确纳入设计的策略。虽然这组文献在过去 20 年中取得了长足的发展，但设计伦理和价值观 (E + VID) 努力的两个核心主题尚未相互系统地讨论：(a) 设计师机构，以及(b) 指导设计过程的规范性声明的强度。为了解决这一差距，我们对领先的 E + VID 方法和批评进行了结构化审查，并根据他们对规范强度的立场和对设计师代理的看法对其进行了分类。我们确定了 18 种不同的方法和 13 种符合我们审查纳入标准的批评。包含的论文分布在关于规范强度的各种观点中，我们发现没有任何方法，只有一个批评代表了“低级”设计师机构的观点特征。我们认为，缺乏“低级”设计师代理方法会导致忽略对设计的关键影响，将其作为设计师干预的目标。最后，我们对未来的研究提出建议，这些建议可能阐明在信息成熟的社会中实现道德设计的策略，并认为，如果不考虑平衡规范的“强烈”未来愿景与企业驱动设计中对设计师机构施加的限制所引发的紧张局势设置，