Paper by Sara Marcucci, Natalia Gonzalez Alarcon, Stefaan G. Verhulst, Elena Wullhorst: “Data has become a critical resource for organizations and society. Yet, it is not always as valuable as it could be since there is no well-defined approach to managing and using it. This article explores the increasing importance of global data governance due to the rapid growth of data and the need for responsible data use and protection. While historically associated with private organizational governance, data governance has evolved to include governmental and institutional bodies. However, the lack of a global consensus and fragmentation in policies and practices pose challenges to the development of a common framework. The purpose of this report is to compare approaches and identify patterns in the emergent and fragmented data governance ecosystem within sectors close to the international development field, ultimately presenting key takeaways and reflections on when and why a global data governance framework may be needed. Overall, the report highlights the need for a more holistic, coordinated transnational approach to data governance to manage the global flow of data responsibly and for the public interest. The article begins by giving an overview of the current fragmented data governance ecology, to then proceed to illustrate the methodology used. Subsequently, the paper illustrates the most relevant findings stemming from the research. These are organized according to six key elements: (a) purpose, (b) principles, (c) anchoring documents, (d) data description and lifecycle, (e) processes, and (f) practices. Finally, the article closes with a series of key takeaways and final reflections…(More)”.
Big data for whom? Data-driven estimates to prioritize the recovery needs of vulnerable populations after a disaster
Blog and paper by Sabine Loos and David Lallemant: “For years, international agencies have been effusing the benefits of big data for sustainable development. Emerging technology–such as crowdsourcing, satellite imagery, and machine learning–have the power to better inform decision-making, especially those that support the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. When a disaster occurs, overwhelming amounts of big data from emerging technology are produced with the intention to support disaster responders. We are seeing this now with the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Syria: space agencies are processing satellite imagery to map faults and building damage or digital humanitarians are crowdsourcing baseline data like roads and buildings.
Eight years ago, the Nepal 2015 earthquake was no exception–emergency managers received maps of shaking or crowdsourced maps of affected people’s needs from diverse sources. A year later, I began research with a team of folks involved during the response to the earthquake, and I was determined to understand how big data produced after disasters were connected to the long-term effects of the earthquake. Our research team found that a lot of data that was used to guide the recovery focused on building damage, which was often viewed as a proxy for population needs. While building damage information is useful, it does not capture the full array of social, environmental, and physical factors that will lead to disparities in long-term recovery. I assumed information would have been available immediately after the earthquake that was aimed at supporting vulnerable populations. However, as I spent time in Nepal during the years after the 2015 earthquake, speaking with government officials and nongovernmental organizations involved in the response and recovery, I found they lacked key information about the needs of the most vulnerable households–those who would face the greatest obstacles during the recovery from the earthquake. While governmental and nongovernmental actors prioritized the needs of vulnerable households as best as possible with the information available, I was inspired to pursue research that could provide better information more quickly after an earthquake, to inform recovery efforts.
In our paper published in Communications Earth and Environment [link], we develop a data-driven approach to rapidly estimate which areas are likely to fall behind during recovery due to physical, environmental, and social obstacles. This approach leverages survey data on recovery progress combined with geospatial datasets that would be readily available after an event that represent factors expected to impede recovery. To identify communities with disproportionate needs long after a disaster, we propose focusing on those who fall behind in recovery over time, or non-recovery. We focus on non-recovery since it places attention on those who do not recover rather than delineating the characteristics of successful recovery. In addition, in speaking to several groups in Nepal involved in the recovery, they understood vulnerability–a concept that is place-based and can change over time–as those who would not be able to recover due to the earthquake…(More)”
Elon Musk Has Broken Disaster-Response Twitter
Article by Juliette Kayyem: “For years, Twitter was at its best when bad things happened. Before Elon Musk bought it last fall, before it was overrun with scammy ads, before it amplified fake personas, and before its engineers were told to get more eyeballs on the owner’s tweets, Twitter was useful in saving lives during natural disasters and man-made crises. Emergency-management officials have used the platform to relate timely information to the public—when to evacuate during Hurricane Ian, in 2022; when to hide from a gunman during the Michigan State University shootings earlier this month—while simultaneously allowing members of the public to transmit real-time data. The platform didn’t just provide a valuable communications service; it changed the way emergency management functions.
That’s why Musk-era Twitter alarms so many people in my field. The platform has been downgraded in multiple ways: Service is glitchier; efforts to contain misleading information are patchier; the person at the top seems largely dismissive of outside input. But now that the platform has embedded itself so deeply in the disaster-response world, it’s difficult to replace. The rapidly deteriorating situation raises questions about platforms’ obligation to society—questions that prickly tech execs generally don’t want to consider…(More)”
Data sharing during coronavirus: lessons for government
Report by Gavin Freeguard and Paul Shepley: “This report synthesises the lessons from six case studies and other research on government data sharing during the pandemic. It finds that current legislation, such as the Digital Economy Act and UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), does not constitute a barrier to data sharing and that while technical barriers – incompatible IT systems, for example – can slow data sharing, they do not prevent it.
Instead, the pandemic forced changes to standard working practice that enabled new data sharing agreements to be created quickly. This report focuses on what these changes were and how they can lead to improvements in future practice.
The report recommends:
- The government should retain data protection officers and data protection impact assessments within the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and consider strengthening provisions around citizen engagement and how to ensure data flows during emergency response.
- The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should consult on how to improve working around data between central and local government in England. This should include the role of the proposed Office for Local Government, data skills and capabilities at the local level, reform of the Single Data List and the creation of a data brokering function to facilitate two-way data sharing between national and local government.
- The Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO) should create a data sharing ‘playbook’ to support public servants building new services founded on data. The playbook should contain templates for standard documents, links to relevant legislation and codes of practice (like those from the Information Commissioner’s Office), guidance on public engagement and case studies covering who to engage and when whilst setting up a new service.
- The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, working with CDDO, should take the lead on guidance and resources on how to engage the public at every stage of data sharing…(More)”.
The Future of Human Agency
Report by Pew Research: “Advances in the internet, artificial intelligence (AI) and online applications have allowed humans to vastly expand their capabilities and increase their capacity to tackle complex problems. These advances have given people the ability to instantly access and share knowledge and amplified their personal and collective power to understand and shape their surroundings. Today there is general agreement that smart machines, bots and systems powered mostly by machine learning and artificial intelligence will quickly increase in speed and sophistication between now and 2035.
As individuals more deeply embrace these technologies to augment, improve and streamline their lives, they are continuously invited to outsource more decision-making and personal autonomy to digital tools.
Some analysts have concerns about how business, government and social systems are becoming more automated. They fear humans are losing the ability to exercise judgment and make decisions independent of these systems.
Others optimistically assert that throughout history humans have generally benefited from technological advances. They say that when problems arise, new regulations, norms and literacies help ameliorate the technology’s shortcomings. And they believe these harnessing forces will take hold, even as automated digital systems become more deeply woven into daily life.
Thus the question: What is the future of human agency? Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center asked experts to share their insights on this; 540 technology innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers, academics and activists responded. Specifically, they were asked:
By 2035, will smart machines, bots and systems powered by artificial intelligence be designed to allow humans to easily be in control of most tech-aided decision-making that is relevant to their lives?
The results of this nonscientific canvassing:
- 56% of these experts agreed with the statement that by 2035 smart machines, bots and systems will not be designed to allow humans to easily be in control of most tech-aided decision-making.
- 44% said they agreed with the statement that by 2035 smart machines, bots and systems will be designed to allow humans to easily be in control of most tech-aided decision-making.
It should be noted that in explaining their answers, many of these experts said the future of these technologies will have both positive and negative consequences for human agency. They also noted that through the ages, people have either allowed other entities to make decisions for them or have been forced to do so by tribal and national authorities, religious leaders, government bureaucrats, experts and even technology tools themselves…(More)”.
Foolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity
Book by Sander van der Linden: “From fake news to conspiracy theories, from pandemics to politics, misinformation may be the defining problem of our era. Like a virus, misinformation infects our minds – altering our beliefs and replicating at astonishing rates. Once the virus takes hold, our primary strategies of fact-checking and debunking are an insufficient cure.
In Foolproof Sander van der Linden describes how to inoculate yourself and others against the spread of misinformation, discern fact from fiction and push back against methods of mass persuasion.
Everyone is susceptible to fake news. There are polarising narratives in society, conspiracy theories are rife, fake experts dole out misleading advice and accuracy is often lost in favour of sensationalist headlines. So how and why does misinformation spread if we’re all aware of its existence? And, more importantly, what can we do about it?…(More)”.
850 million people globally don’t have ID—why this matters and what we can do about it
Blog by Julia Clark, Anna Diofasi, and Claire Casher: “Having proof of legal identity or other officially recognized identification (ID) matters for equitable, sustainable development. It is a basic right and often provides the key to access services and opportunities, whether that is getting a job, opening a bank account, or receiving social assistance payments. The growth of digital services has further increased the need for secure and convenient ways to verify a person’s identity online and remotely.
Yet according to new estimates, some 850 million people globally do not have an official ID (let alone a digital one).
The World Bank’s Identification for Development (ID4D) Initiative works to tackle the lack of access to identification challenge in multiple ways, starting with counting the uncounted.
ID4D has produced estimates of global ID coverage since 2016 as part of its Global Dataset. Extensively updated in 2021-2022, the estimate now includes brand new data sources that paint the clearest picture yet of global ID ownership.
ID4D partnered with the Global Findex survey to obtain representative survey data on adult ID ownership and usage. With this new individual-level data, as well as a significantly expanded set of administrative data provided by ID authorities, estimates released at the end of 2022 indicate that just under 850 million people around the world do not have an official ID (the full methodology is described in the ID4D Global Coverage Estimate report)…(More)”.
Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?
Article by Rebecca Ackermann: “…But in recent years, for a number of reasons, the shine of design thinking has been wearing off. Critics have argued that its short-term focus on novel and naive ideas has resulted in unrealistic and ungrounded recommendations. And they have maintained that by centering designers—mainly practitioners of corporate design within agencies—it has reinforced existing inequities rather than challenging them. Years in, “innovation theater”— checking a series of boxes without implementing meaningful shifts—had become endemic in corporate settings, while a number of social-impact initiatives highlighted in case studies struggled to get beyond pilot projects. Meanwhile, the #MeToo and BLM movements, along with the political turmoil of the Trump administration, have demonstrated that many big problems are rooted in centuries of dark history, too deeply entrenched to be obliterated with a touch of design thinking’s magic wand.
Today, innovation agencies and educational institutions still continue to sell design thinking to individuals, corporations, and organizations. In 2015, IDEO even created its own “online school,” IDEO U, with a bank of design thinking courses. But some groups—including the d.school and IDEO itself—are working to reform both its principles and its methodologies. These new efforts seek a set of design tools capable of equitably serving diverse communities and solving diverse problems well into the future. It’s a much more daunting—and crucial—task than design thinking’s original remit…(More)”.
One Year Since the Invasion of Ukraine, Let Citizens Lead
Essay by Ieva Česnulaitytė: “One year ago, Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, suddenly throwing into jeopardy decades toward democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. But as Ukraine fought back, its neighbours have rallied to its defence.
The war still rages and it is easy to feel despair. But as a Lithuanian democracy expert, I feel confident that our region’s future is bright. It is possible, if we take the right steps, for Ukraine and its neighbours to emerge as more resilient democracies than before.
First, we must recognise the extraordinary outpouring of support for Ukraine from everyday people. Polls show that as of January 2023, two out of three Lithuanians had donated to the Ukrainian defense effort. People in the region welcomed millions of fleeing civilians, crowd-funded millions of euros, and mobilised to penetrate the propaganda wall by sending text messages to Russian citizens.
This is remarkable because, paradoxically, these same countries have abysmal voter turnout and low levels of trust in government. People are still learning to trust one another, to hold their governments accountable, and to embrace their own agency. Thirty years of democratisation has yielded varying levels of success. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania score at the top 20 per cent on V-DEM’S Liberal Democracy Index, while Bulgaria and Moldova are still classified as electoral autocracies.
It turns out that a transition to party politics and elections is fairly easy to undermine through corruption and foreign influence. This has led to “hybrid regimes,” with democratic and nondemocratic features.
At the same time, the region has undergone a paradigm shift from communist regimes, successfully implementing reforms and building democratic institutions. Grounded in values of liberty and self determination, there is a palpable openness to innovate and ambition to make up for the years lost under Soviet oppression.
How can we tap into our innate capacity to collaborate and care for others—so apparent over the past year—to build resilience and accelerate our democratic renaissance? When the war ends, how can we help Ukraine do the same?..(More)”.
European Citizens’ Virtual Worlds Panel
Press Release: “Many people believe that virtual worlds, also referred to as metaverses, might be a change comparable to the appearance of the internet and will transform the way we work and engage with each other in the future. In the last couple of years – and particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic – numerous public and private actors have been investing massively in these so-called “extended and augmented realities”, speeding up changes in our workplaces and habits.
Despite this increased attention, such a transformation will not happen suddenly. Virtual Worlds will take many years to develop into a high-quality, realistic digital environment, and there is no clear picture yet of what metaverses could and should become.
The EU and its Members States are committed to harness the potential of this transformation, understand its opportunities, but also the risks and challenges it poses, while safeguarding the rights of European citizens. The European Commission has therefore decided to convene a citizens’ panel to formulate recommendations for the development of virtual worlds.
Find out more in the information kit that is available in the document section below….(More)”.