How Philanthropy Can Make Sure Data Is Used to Help — Not Harm

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ryan Merkley: “We are living in an extractive data economy. Every day, people generate a firehose of new data on hundreds of apps and services. These data are often sold by data brokers indiscriminately, embedded into user profiles for ad targeting, and used to train large language models such as Chat GPT. Communities and individuals should benefit from data made by and about them, but they don’t.

That needs to change. A report released last month by the Aspen Institute, where I work, calls on foundations and other donors to lead the way in addressing these disparities and promoting responsible uses of data in their own practices and in the work of grantees. Among other things, it suggests that funders encourage grantees to make sure their data accurately represents the communities they serve and support their efforts to make that data available and accessible to constituents…(More)”.

Unlocking the Potential of Data: Innovative Policies for Responsible Data Reuse and Addressing Data Asymmetries

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Testimony by Stefaan Verhulst to the German Bundestag: “Let me begin by highlighting the potential of data when used and reused responsibly. Although we hear much about the risks of using data–and many of the fears are indeed justified–it’s also important to keep in mind the very real possibilities that data offers for advancing the public good.

We live in a datafied world, characterized by an unprecedented supply–even glut–of data. In this world, data has become a critical resource for informing policy and decision-making processes.  When properly analyzed and utilized, data can play a critical role in helping policymakers–and other stakeholders–address a range of critical problems, in sectors as diverse as public health, climate, innovation and economic development, combating urban decay–and much more.

Sometimes this data is readily available. Most of the time it is not. One of the areas with the biggest potential–yet also significant challenges–is data reuse – data already collected for one purpose using it for another.  Data reuse can provide invaluable insights into current phenomena, help us understand the causes of emerging trends, and guide us in developing effective solutions to pressing challenges. Moreover, analysis from data re-use can serve as a powerful tool for anticipating future developments and prescribing targeted interventions…

Despite the very potential of data and data reuse, it’s undeniable we face significant challenges in realizing data’s full societal value.

One of the primary obstacles is a lack of access to high-quality, timely data by the public sector,  civil society, and other groups that are working toward the public good. 

We live in a paradoxical situation today, marked both by the availability of an unprecedented amount of data, but also by unprecedented asymmetries in access to that data for reuse in the public interest. 

I believe that the growing asymmetries between those who have data (often from the private sector) and those who are best positioned to use it for the public good, represents one of the major challenges of our era. 

Data policy to date has primarily focused on preventing the misuse of data, often for valid reasons as mentioned earlier. However, this approach has inadvertently overlooked the missed uses of data – the opportunities we fail to capitalize on due to overly restrictive policies or lack of innovative frameworks for data sharing and utilization…

Given these challenges, what can policymakers do? What steps can policymakers such as yourselves – and other stakeholders, from the private sector, academia and civil society – take to help maximize the potential of our datafied society and economy, and to ensure that the benefits of our data age are maximized in as equitable and inclusive a manner as possible?..(More)” (German) (See also: Experten: Innovative Ansätze in der Datenpolitik nötig).

Taking [A]part: The Politics and Aesthetics of Participation in Experience-Centered Design

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by John McCarthy and Peter Wright: “…consider a series of boundary-pushing research projects in human-computer interaction (HCI) in which the design of digital technology is used to inquire into participative experience. McCarthy and Wright view all of these projects—which range from the public and performative to the private and interpersonal—through the critical lens of participation. Taking participation, in all its variety, as the generative and critical concept allows them to examine the projects as a part of a coherent, responsive movement, allied with other emerging movements in DIY culture and participatory art. Their investigation leads them to rethink such traditional HCI categories as designer and user, maker and developer, researcher and participant, characterizing these relationships instead as mutually responsive and dialogical.

McCarthy and Wright explore four genres of participation—understanding the other, building relationships, belonging in community, and participating in publics—and they examine participatory projects that exemplify each genre. These include the Humanaquarium, a participatory musical performance; the Personhood project, in which a researcher and a couple explored the experience of living with dementia; the Prayer Companion project, which developed a technology to inform the prayer life of cloistered nuns; and the development of social media to support participatory publics in settings that range from reality game show fans to on-line deliberative democracies…(More)”

Illuminating Lived Experience

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Lab Note from the Sydney Policy Lab: “The lived experiences of people involved in care – from informal and formal care workers to the people they support – is foundational to the Australia Cares project. To learn from the ways people with lived experience are included in co-design and research methods, the Sydney Policy Lab initiated reflective research that has resulted in a Lab Note on Illuminating Lived Experience (pdf, 1MB).

Through a series of interviews, dialogues and collaborative writing processes, co-authors explored tensions between different approaches and core concepts underpinning lived experience methods and shared examples of those methods in practice.

Illuminating Lived Experience poses questions that may help guide researchers and policymakers seeking to engage people with lived experience and three core principles we believe are required for such engagements.

The Lab Note aims to encourage researchers to be creative in the ways co-design and lived experience are approached while being true to the critical roots of participatory methodologies. Rather than prescribing methods, the principles and practices developed are offered as a guide – a starting point for play…(More)”

Real Chaos, Today! Are Randomized Controlled Trials a good way to do economics?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Maia Mindel: “A few weeks back, there was much social media drama about this a paper titled: “Social Media and Job Market Success: A Field Experiment on Twitter” (2024) by Jingyi Qiu, Yan Chen, Alain Cohn, and Alvin Roth (recipient of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics). The study posted job market papers by economics PhDs, and then assigned prominent economists (who had volunteered) to randomly promote half of them on their profiles(more detail on this paper in a bit).

The “drama” in question was generally: “it is immoral to throw dice around on the most important aspect of a young economist’s career”, versus “no it’s not”. This, of course, awakened interest in a broader subject: Randomized Controlled Trials, or RCTs.

R.C.T. T.O. G.O.

Let’s go back to the 1600s – bloodletting was a common way to cure diseases. Did it work? Well, doctor Joan Baptista van Helmont had an idea: randomly divvy up a few hundred invalids into two groups, one of which got bloodletting applied, and another one that didn’t.

While it’s not clear this experiment ever happened, it sets up the basic principle of the randomized control trial: the idea here is that, to study the effects of a treatment, (in a medical context, a medicine; in an economics context, a policy), a sample group is divided between two: the control group, which does not receive any treatment, and the treatment group, which does. The modern randomized controlled (or control) trial has three “legs”: it’s randomized because who’s in each group gets chosen at random, it’s controlled because there’s a group that doesn’t get the treatment to serve as a counterfactual, and it’s a trial because you’re not developing “at scale” just yet.

Why could it be important to randomly select people for economic studies? Well, you want the only difference, on average, between the two groups to be whether or not they get the treatment. Consider military service: it’s regularly trotted out that drafting kids would reduce crime rates. Is this true? Well, the average person who is exempted from the draft could be, systematically, different than the average person who isn’t – for example, people who volunteer could be from wealthier families who are more patriotic, or poorer families who need certain benefits; or they could have physical disabilities that impede their labor market participation, or wealthier university students who get a deferral. But because many countries use lotteries to allocate draftees versus non draftees, you can get a group of people who are randomly assigned to the draft, and who on average should be similar enough to each other. One study in particular, about Argentina’s mandatory military service in pretty much all of the 20th century, finds that being conscripted raises the crime rate relative to people who didn’t get drafted through the lottery. This doesn’t mean that soldiers have higher crime rates than non soldiers, because of selection issues – but it does provide pretty good evidence that getting drafted is not good for your non-criminal prospects…(More)”.

The 4M Roadmap: A Higher Road to Profitability by Using Big Data for Social Good

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Brennan Lake: “As the private sector faces conflicting pressures to either embrace or shun socially responsible practices, companies with privately held big-data assets must decide whether to share access to their data for public good. While some managers object to data sharing over concerns of privacy and product cannibalization, others launch well intentioned yet short-lived CSR projects that fail to deliver on lofty goals.

By embedding Shared-Value principles into ‘Data-for-Good’ programs, data-rich firms can launch responsible data-sharing initiatives that minimize risk, deliver sustained impact, and improve overall competitiveness in the process.

The 4M Roadmap by Brennan Lake, a Big-Data and Social Impact professional, guides managers to adopt a ‘Data-for-Good’ model that emphasizes four key pillars of value-creation: Mission, Messaging, Methods, and Monetization. Through deep analysis and private-sector case studies, The 4M Roadmap demonstrates how companies can engage in responsible data sharing to benefit society and business alike…(More)”.

Preparing Researchers for an Era of Freer Information

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Peter W.B. Phillips: “If you Google my name along with “Monsanto,” you will find a series of allegations from 2013 that my scholarly work at the University of Saskatchewan, focused on technological change in the global food system, had been unduly influenced by corporations. The allegations made use of seven freedom of information (FOI) requests. Although leadership at my university determined that my publications were consistent with university policy, the ensuing media attention, I feel, has led some colleagues, students, and partners to distance themselves to avoid being implicated by association.

In the years since, I’ve realized that my experience is not unique. I have communicated with other academics who have experienced similar FOI requests related to genetically modified organisms in the United States, Canada, England, Netherlands, and Brazil. And my field is not the only one affected: a 2015 Union of Concerned Scientists report documented requests in multiple states and disciplines—from history to climate science to epidemiology—as well as across ideologies. In the University of California system alone, researchers have received open records requests related to research on the health effects of toxic chemicals, the safety of abortions performed by clinicians rather than doctors, and the green energy production infrastructure. These requests are made possible by laws that permit anyone, for any reason, to gain access to public agencies’ records.

These open records campaigns, which are conducted by individuals and groups across the political spectrum, arise in part from the confluence of two unrelated phenomena: the changing nature of academic research toward more translational, interdisciplinary, and/or team-based investigations and the push for more transparency in taxpayer-funded institutions. Neither phenomenon is inherently negative; in fact, there are strong advantages for science and society in both trends. But problems arise when scholars are caught between them—affecting the individuals involved and potentially influencing the ongoing conduct of research…(More)”

Assembling Tomorrow

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Stanford d.school: “…explores how to use readily accessible tools of design to both mend the mistakes of our past and shape our future for the better. It explores the intangibles, the mysterious forces that contribute to the off-kilter feelings of today, and follows up with actionables to help you alter your perspective and find opportunities in these turbulent times. Mixed throughout are histories of the future, short pieces of speculative fiction that illustrate how things go haywire and what might be in store if we don’t set them straight…(More)”.

Exploring Visitor Density Trends in Rest Areas Through Google Maps Data and Data Mining

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Marita Prasetyani, R. Rizal Isnanto and Catur Edi Widodo: “Rest areas play a vital role in ensuring the safety and comfort of travelers. This study examines the visitor density at the toll and non-toll rest areas using data mining techniques applied to Google Maps Places data. By utilizing extensive information from Google Maps, the research aims to uncover patterns and trends in visitor behavior and pinpoint peak usage times. The findings can guide improved planning and management of rest areas, thereby enhancing the overall travel experience for road users and further research to determine the location of the new rest area.Understanding patterns or trends in visitor density at rest areas involves analyzing the time of day, location, and other factors influencing the density level. Understanding these trends can provide essential insights for rest area management, infrastructure planning, and the establishment of new rest areas.Data from Google Maps provides an invaluable source of real-time and historical information, enabling accurate and in-depth analysis of visitor behavior.Data mining helps identify relationships not immediately apparent in the data, providing a deeper understanding and supporting data-driven decision-making…(More)”.

The Essential Principle for Appropriate Data Policy of Citizen Science Projects

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Chapter by Takeshi Osawa: “Citizen science is one of new paradigms of science. This concept features various project forms, participants, and motivations and implies the need for attention to ethical issues for every participant, which frequently includes nonacademics. In this chapter, I address ethical issues associated with citizen science projects that focus on the data treatment rule and demonstrate a concept on appropriate data policy for these projects. First, I demonstrate that citizen science projects tend to include different types of collaboration, which may lead to certain conflicts among participants in terms of data sharing. Second, I propose an idea that could integrate different types of collaboration according to the theory transcend. Third, I take a case of a citizen science project through which transcend occurred and elucidate the difference between ordinal research and citizen science projects, specifically in terms of the goals of these projects and the goals and motivations of participants, which may change. Finally, I proposed one conceptual idea on how the principal investigator (PI) of a citizen science project can establish data policy after assessing the rights of participants. The basic idea is the division and organization of the data policy in a hierarchy for the project and for the participants. Data policy is one of the important items for establishing the appropriate methods for citizen science as new style of science. As such, practice and framing related to data policy must be carefully monitored and reflected on…(More)”.