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)”

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)”

Mission Driven Bureaucrats: Empowering People To Help Government Do Better

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Dan Honig: “…argues that the performance of our governments can be transformed by managing bureaucrats for their empowerment rather than for compliance. Aimed at public sector workers, leaders, academics, and citizens alike, it contends that public sectors too often rely on a managerial approach that seeks to tightly monitor and control employees, and thus demotivates and repels the mission-motivated. The book suggests that better performance can in many cases come from a more empowerment-oriented managerial approach—which allows autonomy, cultivates feelings of competence, and creates connection to peers and purpose—which allows the mission-motivated to thrive. Arguing against conventional wisdom, the volume argues that compliance often thwarts, rather than enhances, public value—and that we can often get less corruption and malfeasance with less monitoring. It provides a handbook of strategies for managers to introduce empowerment-oriented strategies into their agency. It also describes what everyday citizens can do to support the empowerment of bureaucrats in their governments. Interspersed throughout this book are featured profiles of real-life Mission Driven Bureaucrats, who exemplify the dedication and motivation that is typical of many civil servants. Drawing on original empirical data from a number of countries and the prior work of other scholars from around the globe, the volume argues that empowerment-oriented management and how to cultivate, support, attract, and retain Mission Driven Bureaucrats should have a larger place in our thinking and practice…(More)”.

Governance in silico: Experimental sandbox for policymaking over AI Agents

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Denisa Reshef Keraa, Eilat Navonb and Galit Well: “The concept of ‘governance in silico’ summarizes and questions the various design and policy experiments with synthetic data and content in public policy, such as synthetic data simulations, AI agents, and digital twins. While it acknowledges the risks of AI-generated hallucinations, errors, and biases, often reflected in the parameters and weights of the ML models, it focuses on the prompts. Prompts enable stakeholder negotiation and representation of diverse agendas and perspectives that support experimental and inclusive policymaking. To explore the prompts’ engagement qualities, we conducted a pilot study on co-designing AI agents for negotiating contested aspects of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act). The experiments highlight the value of an ‘exploratory sandbox’ approach, which fosters political agency through direct representation over AI agent simulations. We conclude that such ‘governance in silico’ exploratory approach enhances public consultation and engagement and presents a valuable alternative to the frequently overstated promises of evidence-based policy…(More)”.

Using AI to Inform Policymaking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper for the AI4Democracy series at The Center for the Governance of Change at IE University: “Good policymaking requires a multifaceted approach, incorporating diverse tools and processes to address the varied needs and expectations of constituents. The paper by Turan and McKenzie focuses on an LLM-based tool, “Talk to the City” (TttC), developed to facilitate collective decision-making by soliciting, analyzing, and organizing public opinion. This tool has been tested in three distinct applications:

1. Finding Shared Principles within Constituencies: Through large-scale citizen consultations, TttC helps identify common values and priorities.

2. Compiling Shared Experiences in Community Organizing: The tool aggregates and synthesizes the experiences of community members, providing a cohesive overview.

3. Action-Oriented Decision Making in Decentralized Governance: TttC supports decision-making processes in decentralized governance structures by providing actionable insights from diverse inputs.

CAPABILITIES AND BENEFITS OF LLM TOOLS

LLMs, when applied to democratic decision-making, offer significant advantages:

  • Processing Large Volumes of Qualitative Inputs: LLMs can handle extensive qualitative data, summarizing discussions and identifying overarching themes with high accuracy.
  • Producing Aggregate Descriptions in Natural Language: The ability to generate clear, comprehensible summaries from complex data makes these tools invaluable for communicating nuanced topics.
  • Facilitating Understanding of Constituents’ Needs: By organizing public input, LLM tools help leaders gain a better understanding of their constituents’ needs and priorities.

CASE STUDIES AND TOOL EFFICACY

The paper presents case studies using TttC, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving collective deliberation and decision-making. Key functionalities include:

  • Aggregating Responses and Clustering Ideas: TttC identifies common themes and divergences within a population’s opinions.
  • Interactive Interface for Exploration: The tool provides an interactive platform for exploring the diversity of opinions at both individual and group scales, revealing complexity, common ground, and polarization…(More)”

Enrolling Citizens: A Primer on Archetypes of Democratic Engagement with AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Wanheng Hu and Ranjit Singh: “In response to rapid advances in artificial intelligence, lawmakers, regulators, academics, and technologists alike are sifting through technical jargon and marketing hype as they take on the challenge of safeguarding citizens from the technology’s potential harms while maximizing their access to its benefits. A common feature of these efforts is including citizens throughout the stages of AI development and governance. Yet doing so is impossible without a clear vision of what citizens ideally should do. This primer takes up this imperative and asks: What approaches can ensure that citizens have meaningful involvement in the development of AI, and how do these approaches envision the role of a “good citizen”?

The primer highlights three major approaches to involving citizens in AI — AI literacy, AI governance, and participatory AI — each of them premised on the importance of enrolling citizens but envisioning different roles for citizens to play. While recognizing that it is largely impossible to come up with a universal standard for building AI in the public interest, and that all approaches will remain local and situated, this primer invites a critical reflection on the underlying assumptions about technology, democracy, and citizenship that ground how we think about the ethics and role of public(s) in large-scale sociotechnical change. ..(More)”.

Why policy failure is a prerequisite for innovation in the public sector

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Philipp Trein and Thenia Vagionaki: “In our article entitled, “Why policy failure is a prerequisite for innovation in the public sector,” we explore the relationship between policy failure and innovation within public governance. Drawing inspiration from the “Innovator’s Dilemma,”—a theory from the management literature—we argue that the very nature of policymaking, characterized by myopia of voters, blame avoidance by decisionmakers, and the complexity (ill-structuredness) of societal challenges, has an inherent tendency to react with innovation only after failure of existing policies.  

Our analysis implies that we need to be more critical of what the policy process can achieve in terms of public sector innovation. Cognitive limitations tend to lead to a misperception of problems and inaccurate assessment of risks by decision makers according to the “Innovator’s Dilemma”.  This problem implies that true innovation (non-trivial policy changes) are unlikely to happen before an existing policy has failed visibly. However, our perspective does not want to paint a gloomy picture for public policy making but rather offers a more realistic interpretation of what public sector innovation can achieve. As a consequence, learning from experts in the policy process should be expected to correct failures in public sector problem-solving during the political process, rather than raise expectations beyond what is possible. 

The potential impact of our findings is profound. For practitioners and policymakers, this insight offers a new lens through which to evaluate the failure and success of public policies. Our work advocates a paradigm shift in how we perceive, manage, and learn from policy failures in the public sector, and for the expectations we have towards learning and the use of evidence in policymaking. By embracing the limitations of innovation in public policy, we can better manage expectations and structure the narrative regarding the capacity of public policy to address collective problems…(More)”.


The Character of Consent

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Meg Leta Jones about The History of Cookies and the Future of Technology Policy: “Consent pop-ups continually ask us to download cookies to our computers, but is this all-too-familiar form of privacy protection effective? No, Meg Leta Jones explains in The Character of Consent, rather than promote functionality, privacy, and decentralization, cookie technology has instead made the internet invasive, limited, and clunky. Good thing, then, that the cookie is set for retirement in 2024. In this eye-opening book, Jones tells the little-known story of this broken consent arrangement, tracing it back to the major transnational conflicts around digital consent over the last twenty-five years. What she finds is that the policy controversy is not, in fact, an information crisis—it’s an identity crisis.

Instead of asking how people consent, Jones asks who exactly is consenting and to what. Packed into those cookie pop-ups, she explains, are three distinct areas of law with three different characters who can consent. Within (mainly European) data protection law, the data subject consents. Within communication privacy law, the user consents. And within consumer protection law, the privacy consumer consents. These areas of law have very different histories, motivations, institutional structures, expertise, and strategies, so consent—and the characters who can consent—plays a unique role in those areas of law….(More)”.

Can Artificial Intelligence Bring Deliberation to the Masses?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Chapter by Hélène Landemore: “A core problem in deliberative democracy is the tension between two seemingly equally important conditions of democratic legitimacy: deliberation, on the one hand, and mass participation, on the other. Might artificial intelligence help bring quality deliberation to the masses? The answer is a qualified yes. The chapter first examines the conundrum in deliberative democracy around the trade-off between deliberation and mass participation by returning to the seminal debate between Joshua Cohen and Jürgen Habermas. It then turns to an analysis of the 2019 French Great National Debate, a low-tech attempt to involve millions of French citizens in a two-month-long structured exercise of collective deliberation. Building on the shortcomings of this process, the chapter then considers two different visions for an algorithm-powered form of mass deliberation—Mass Online Deliberation (MOD), on the one hand, and Many Rotating Mini-publics (MRMs), on the other—theorizing various ways artificial intelligence could play a role in them. To the extent that artificial intelligence makes the possibility of either vision more likely to come to fruition, it carries with it the promise of deliberation at the very large scale….(More)”