Paper by Sara Tori, Geert te Boveldt, Imre Keseru: “In recent years, scenarios have been increasingly used as a tool for helping decision makers deal with uncertainty, assess risks, enhance policy performance, expand creativity, and stimulate open discussion. In transport, scenario planning is an established method to help solve the mobility challenges of cities. In this paper, we propose a mixed-methods approach that combines cross-impact balance analysis with creative scenario planning workshops. CIB analysis was used to obtain raw scenarios that were enhanced with the output from creative workshops to obtain narratives and visuals to make the scenarios easily communicable. The approach was applied in five cities simultaneously. For each city, we developed three different scenarios for urban mobility by 2030. We found that developing the cross-impact matrix centrally and then adapting it to each city’s local context can significantly reduce the time needed for the analysis. In addition, the methodology employed can easily be adapted to the needs of local stakeholders. As it is a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, it is easily understandable for stakeholders, allowing them to fully participate in the process. The creative outputs in the form of narratives and images have helped to create results that are easy to communicate with the stakeholders…(More)”.
Data property, data governance and Common European Data Spaces
Paper by Thomas Margoni, Charlotte Ducuing and Luca Schirru: “The Data Act proposal of February 2022 constitutes a central element of a broader and ambitious initiative of the European Commission (EC) to regulate the data economy through the erection of a new general regulatory framework for data and digital markets. The resulting framework may be represented as a model of governance between a pure market-driven model and a fully regulated approach, thereby combining elements that traditionally belong to private law (e.g., property rights, contracts) and public law (e.g., regulatory authorities, limitation of contractual freedom). This article discusses the role of (intellectual) property rights as well as of other forms of rights allocation in data legislation with particular attention to the Data Act proposal. We argue that the proposed Data Act has the potential to play a key role in the way in which data, especially privately held data, may be accessed, used, and shared. Nevertheless, it is only by looking at the whole body of data (and data related) legislation that the broader plan for a data economy can be grasped in its entirety. Additionally, the Data Act proposal may also arguably reveal the elements for a transition from a property-based to a governance-based paradigm in the EU data strategy. Whereas elements of data governance abound, the stickiness of property rights and rhetoric seem however hard to overcome. The resulting regulatory framework, at least for now, is therefore an interesting but not always perfectly coordinated mix of both. Finally, this article suggests that the Data Act Proposal may have missed the chance to properly address the issue of data holders’ power and related information asymmetries, as well as the need for coordination mechanisms…(More)”.
Building Online Public Consultation Knowledge
Graphs
Paper by William Aboucaya, Sonia Guehis and Rafael Angarita: “Online consultation platforms have improved the possibilities for citizens to have an input on public decision making. However, and especially at large scale, identification of the topics discussed and entities evoked has been identified as difficult for both citizens and platform administrators. In this paper, we leverage topic modeling, Named Entity Recognition and Linking and Semantic Textual Similarity to build a knowledge graph representing the different contributions to the République Numérique online citizen consultation in French language. The generated graph links the different proposals to topics identified in the consultation and to relevant DBpedia resources. The model proposed for representation of citizen consultations as knowledge graphs simplifies the retrieval of proposals focused on specific topics or mentioning a given entity. It also allows us to improve contextualization of important words in proposals by linking them to short definitions extracted from Wikipedia…(More)”.
The Citizens’ Panel proposes 23 recommendations for fair and human-centric virtual worlds in the EU
European Commission: “From 21 to 23 April, the Commission hosted the closing session of the European Citizens’ Panel on Virtual Months in Brussels, which allowed citizens to make recommendations on values and actions to create attractive and fair European virtual worlds.
These recommendations will support the Commission’s work on virtual worlds and the future of the Internet.
After three weekends of deliberations, the panel, composed of around 150 citizens randomly chosen to represent the diversity of the European population, made 23 recommendations on citizens’ expectations for the future, principles and actions to ensure that virtual worlds in the EU are fair and citizen-friendly. These recommendations are structured around eight values and principles: freedom of choice, sustainability, human-centred, health, education, safety and security, transparency and integration.
This new generation of Citizens’ Panels is a key element of the Conference on the Future of Europe, which aims to encourage citizens’ participation in the European Commission’s policy-making process in certain key areas.
The Commission is currently preparing a new initiative on virtual worlds, which will outline Europe’s vision, in line with European digital rights and principles. The upcoming initiative will focus on how to address societal challenges, foster innovation for businesses and pave the way for a transition to Web 4.0.
In addition to this Citizens’ Panel, the Commission has launched a call for input to allow citizens and stakeholders to share their thoughts on the topic. Contributions can be made until 3 May…(More)”.
How well do the UK government’s ‘areas of research interest’ work as boundary objects to facilitate the use of research in policymaking?
Paper by Annette Boaz and Kathryn Oliver: “Articulating the research priorities of government is one mechanism for promoting the production of relevant research to inform policy. This study focuses on the Areas of Research Interest (ARIs) produced and published by government departments in the UK. Through a qualitative study consisting of interviews with 25 researchers, civil servants, intermediaries and research funders, the authors explored the role of ARIs. Using the concept of boundary objects, the paper considers the ways in which ARIs are used and how they are supported by boundary practices and boundary workers, including through engagement opportunities. The paper addresses the following questions: What boundaries do ARIs cross, intended and otherwise? What characteristics of ARIs enable or hinder this boundary-crossing? and What resources, skills, work or conditions are required for this boundary-crossing to work well? We see the ARIs being used as a boundary object across multiple boundaries, with implications for the ways in which the ARIs are crafted and shared. In the application of ARIs in the UK policy context, we see a constant interplay between boundary objects, practices and people all operating within the confines of existing systems and processes. For example, understanding what was meant by a particular ARI sometimes involved ‘decoding’ work as part of the academic-policy engagement process. While ARIs have an important role to play they are no magic bullet. Nor do they tell the whole story of governmental research interests. Optimizing the use of research in policy making requires the galvanisation of a range of mechanisms, including ARIs…(More)”.
The Future of Consent: The Coming Revolution in Privacy and Consumer Trust
Report by Ogilvy: “The future of consent will be determined by how we – as individuals, nations, and a global species – evolve our understanding of what counts as meaningful consent. For consumers and users, the greatest challenge lies in connecting consent to a mechanism of relevant, personal control over their data. For businesses and other organizations, the task will be to recast consent as a driver of positive economic outcomes, rather than an obstacle.
In the coming years of digital privacy innovation, regulation, and increasing market maturity, everyone will need to think more deeply about their relationship with consent. As an initial step, we’ve assembled this snapshot on the current and future state of (meaningful) consent: what it means, what the obstacles are, and which critical changes we need to embrace to evolve…(More)”.
Including the underrepresented
Paper by FIDE: “Deliberative democracy is based on the premise that all voices matter and that we can equally participate in decision-making. However, structural inequalities might prevent certain groups from being recruited for deliberation, skewing the process towards the socially privileged. Those structural inequalities are also present in the deliberation room, which can lead to unconscious (or conscious) biases that hinder certain voices while amplifying others. This causes particular perspectives to influence decision-making unequally.
This paper presents different methods and strategies applied in previous processes to increase the inclusion of underrepresented groups. We distinguish strategies for the two critical phases of the deliberative process: recruitment and deliberation…(More)”.
Data Maturity Assessment for Government
UK Government: “The Data Maturity Assessment (DMA) for Government is a robust and comprehensive framework, designed by the public sector for the public sector. The DMA represents a big step forward in our shared ambition to establish and strengthen the data foundations in government by enabling a granular view of the current status of our data environments.
The systematic and detailed picture that the DMA results provide can be used to deliver value in the data function and across the enterprise. Maturity results, and the progression behaviours/features outlined in the DMA, will be essential to reviewing and setting data strategy. DMA outputs provide a way to communicate and evidence how the data ecosystem is critical to the business. When considered in the context of organisational priorities and responsibilities, DMA outputs can assist in:
- identifying and mitigating strategic risk arising from low data maturity, and where higher maturity needs to be maintained
- targeting and prioritising investment in the most important data initiatives
- assuring the data environment for new services and programmes…(More)”.
Whose data commons? Whose city?
Blog by Gijs van Maanen and Anna Artyushina: “In 2020, the notion of data commons became a staple of the new European Data Governance Strategy, which envisions data cooperatives as key players of the European Union’s (EU) emerging digital market. In this new legal landscape, public institutions, businesses, and citizens are expected to share their data with the licensed data-governance entities that will oversee its responsible reuse. In 2022, the Open Future Foundation released several white papers where the NGO (non-govovernmental organisation) detailed a vision for the publicly governed and funded EU level data commons. Some academic researchers see data commons as a way to break the data silos maintained and exploited by Big Tech and, potentially, dismantle surveillance capitalism.
In this blog post, we discuss data commons as a concept and practice. Our argument here is that, for data commons to become a (partial) solution to the issues caused by data monopolies, they need to be politicised. As smart city scholar Shannon Mattern pointedly argues, the city is not a computer. This means that digitization and datafication of our cities involves making choices about what is worth digitising and whose interests are prioritised. These choices and their implications must be foregrounded when we discuss data commons or any emerging forms of data governance. It is important to ask whose data is made common and, subsequently, whose city we will end up living in. ..(More)”
The Technology/Jobs Puzzle: A European Perspective
Blog by Pierre-Alexandre Balland, Lucía Bosoer and Andrea Renda as part of the work of the Markle Technology Policy and Research Consortium: “In recent years, the creation of “good jobs” – defined as occupations that provide a middle-class living standard, adequate benefits, sufficient economic security, personal autonomy, and career prospects (Rodrik and Sabel 2019; Rodrik and Stantcheva 2021) – has become imperative for many governments. At the same time, developments in industrial value chains and in digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) create important challenges for the creation of good jobs. On the one hand, future good jobs may not be found only in manufacturing, ad this requires that industrial policy increasingly looks at services. On the other hand, AI has shown the potential to automate both routine and also non-routine tasks (TTC 2022), and this poses new, important questions on what role humans will play in the industrial value chains of the future. In the report drafted for the Markle Technology Policy and Research Consortium on The Technology/Jobs Puzzle: A European Perspective, we analyze Europe’s approach to the creation of “good jobs”. By mapping Europe’s technological specialization, we estimate in which sectors good jobs are most likely to emerge, and assess the main opportunities and challenges Europe faces on the road to a resilient, sustainable and competitive future economy.The report features an important reflection on how to define job quality and, relatedly “good jobs”. From the perspective of the European Union, job quality can be defined along two distinct dimensions. First, while the internationally agreed definition is rather static (e.g. related to the current conditions of the worker), the emerging interpretation at the EU level incorporates the extent to which a given job leads to nurturing human capital, and thereby empowering workers with more skills and well-being over time. Second, job quality can be seen from a “micro” perspective, which only accounts for the condition of the individual worker; or from a more “macro” perspective, which considers whether the sector in which the job emerges is compatible with the EU’s agenda, and in particular with the twin (green and digital) transition. As a result, we argue that ideally, Europe should avoid creating “good” jobs in “bad” sectors, as well as “bad” jobs in “good” sectors. The ultimate goal is to create “good” jobs in “good” sectors….(More)”