FT Review of book by Dan Davies: “The starting point of Davies’ entertaining, insightful book is that the uncontrolled proliferation of accountability sinks is one of the central drivers of what historian Adam Tooze calls the “polycrisis” of the 21st century. Their influence reaches far beyond frustrated customers endlessly on hold to “computer says no” service departments. In finance, banking crises regularly recur — yet few individual bankers are found at fault. If politicians’ promises flop, they complain they have no power; the Deep State is somehow to blame.
The origin of the problem, Davies argues, is the managerial revolution that began after the second world war, abetted by the advent of cheap computing power and the diffusion of algorithmic decision-making into every sphere of life. These systems have ended up “acting like a car’s crumple-zone to shield any individual manager from a disastrous decision”, he writes. While attractive from the individual’s perspective, they scramble the feedback on which society as a whole depends.
Yet the story, Davies continues, is not so simple. Seen from another perspective, accountability sinks are entirely reasonable responses to the ever-increasing complexity of modern economies. Standardisation and explicit policies and procedures offer the only feasible route to meritocratic recruitment, consistent service and efficient work. Relying on the personal discretion of middle managers would simply result in a different kind of mess…(More)”.
Forum on Democracy and Information: “At a critical time for understanding digital communications’ impact on societies, research on disinformation is endangered.
In August, researchers around the world bid farewell to CrowdTangle – the Meta-owned social media monitoring tool. The decision by Meta to close the number one platform used to track mis- and disinformation, in what is a major election year, only to present its alternative tool Meta Content Library and API, has been met with a barrage of criticism.
If, as suggested by the World Economic Forum’s 2024 global risk report, disinformation is one of the biggest short-term threats to humanity, our collective ability to understand how it spreads and impacts our society is crucial. Just as we would not impede scientific research into the spread of viruses and disease, nor into natural ecosystems or other historical and social sciences, disinformation research must be permitted to be carried out unimpeded and with access to information needed to understand its complexity. Understanding the political economy of disinformation as well as its technological dimensions is also a matter of public health, democratic resilience, and national security.
By directly affecting the research community’s ability to open social media black boxes, this radical decision will also, in turn, hamper public understanding of how technology affects democracy. Public interest scrutiny is also essential for the next era of technology, notably for the world’s largest AI systems, which are similarly proprietary and opaque. The research community is already calling on AI companies to learn from the mistakes of social media and guarantee protections for good faith research. The solution falls on multiple shoulders and the global scientific community, civil society, public institutions and philanthropies must come together to meaningfully foster and protect public interest research on information and democracy…(More)”.
Report by Beth Kerley, Carl Miller, and Fernanda Campagnucci: “Like social media before them, new AI tools promise to change the game when it comes to civic engagement. These technologies offer bold new possibilities for investigative journalists, anticorruption advocates, and others working with limited resources to advance democratic norms.
Yet the transformation wrought by AI advances is far from guaranteed to work in democracy’s favor. Potential threats to democracy from AI have drawn wide attention. To better the odds for prodemocratic actors in a fluid technological environment, systematic thinking about how to make AI work for democracy is needed.
The essays in this report outline possible paths toward a prodemocratic vision for AI. An overview essay by Beth Kerley based on insights from an International Forum for Democratic Studies expert workshop reflects on the critical questions that confront organizations seeking to deploy AI tools. Fernanda Campagnucci, spotlighting the work of Open Knowledge Brasil to open up government data, explores how AI advances are creating new opportunities for citizens to scrutinize public information. Finally, Demos’s Carl Miller sheds light on how AI technologies that enable new forms of civic deliberation might change the way we think about democratic participation itself…(More)“.
Article by Kyle Ellingson: “Many of us entered this so-called super-election year with a sense of foreboding. So far, not much has happened to allay those fears. Russia’s war on Ukraine is exacerbating a perception that democracy is threatened in Europe and beyond. In the US, Donald Trump, a presidential candidate with self-professed autocratic tendencies, has faced two assassination attempts. And more broadly, people seem to be losing faith in politics. “Most people from a diverse array of countries around the world lack confidence in the performance of their political institutions,” says a 2024 report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
On many objective measures, too, democracy isn’t functioning as it should. The systems we call democracies tend to favour the rich. Political violence is growing, as is legislative gridlock, and worldwide, elections are becoming less free and fair. Some 30 years after commentators crowed about the triumph of Western liberal democracy, their prediction seems further than ever from being realised. What happened?
According to Lex Paulson at the University Mohammed VI Polytechnic in Rabat, Morocco, we have lost sight of what democracy is. “We have made a terrible confusion between the system known as a republic – which relies on elections, parties and a permanent governing class – and the system known as a democracy, in which citizens directly participate in decisions and rotate power.” …(More)”.
Paper by David Y. Yang: “Autocracy 2.0, exemplified by modern China, is economically robust, technologically advanced, globally engaged, and controlled through subtle and sophisticated methods. What defines China’s political economy, and what drives Autocracy 2.0? What is its future direction? I start by discussing two key challenges autocracies face: incentives and information. I then describe Autocracy 1.0’s reliance on fear and repression to address these issues. It makes no credible promises, using coercion for compliance, resulting in a low-information environment. Next, I introduce Autocracy 2.0, highlighting its significant shift in handling commitment and information challenges. China uses economic incentives to align interests with regime survival, fostering support. It employs advanced bureaucratic structures and technology to manage incentives and information, enabling success in a high-information environment. Finally, I explore Autocracy 3.0’s potential. In China, forces might revert to Autocracy 1.0, using technology for state control as growth slows but aspirations stay high. Globally, modern autocracies, led by China, are becoming major geopolitical forces, challenging the liberal democratic order…(More)”.
Article by Steve Lohr: “A new project, orchestrated by Stanford University and published on Tuesday, is inspired by the Federalist Papers and contends that today is a broadly similar historical moment of economic and political upheaval that calls for a rethinking of society’s institutional arrangements.
In an introduction to its collection of 12 essays, called the Digitalist Papers, the editors overseeing the project, including Erik Brynjolfsson, director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration and director of the Hoover Institution, identify their overarching concern.
“A powerful new technology, artificial intelligence,” they write, “explodes onto the scene and threatens to transform, for better or worse, all legacy social institutions.”
The most common theme in the diverse collection of essays: Citizens need to be more involved in determining how to regulate and incorporate A.I. into their lives. “To build A.I. for the people, with the people,” as one essay summed it up.
The project is being published as the technology is racing ahead. A.I. enthusiasts see a future of higher economic growth, increased prosperity and a faster pace of scientific discovery. But the technology is also raising fears of a dystopian alternative — A.I. chatbots and automated software not only replacing millions of workers, but also generating limitless misinformation and worsening political polarization. How to govern and guide A.I. in the public interest remains an open question…(More)”.
Article by Gary Zhexi Zhang: “In 2014, the southwestern province of Guizhou, a historically poor and mountainous area, beat out rival regions to become China’s first “Big Data Comprehensive Pilot Zone,” as part of a national directive to develop the region — which is otherwise best known as an exporter of tobacco, spirits and coal — into the infrastructural backbone of the country’s data industry. Since then, vast investment has poured into the province. Thousands of miles of highway and high-speed rail tunnel through the mountains. Driving through the province can feel vertiginous: Of the hundred highest bridges in the world, almost half are in Guizhou, and almost all were built in the last 15 years.
In 2015, Xi Jinping visited Gui’an New Area to inaugurate the province’s transformation into China’s “Big Data Valley,” exemplifying the central government’s goal to establish “high quality social and economic development,” ubiquitously advertised through socialist-style slogans plastered on highways and city streets…(More)”.
Policy paper by Grahm Tuohy-Gaydos: “…provides a working definition of AI for Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the broader democracy support sector. It then provides a preliminary review of how AI is being used to enhance democratic practices worldwide, focusing on several themes including: accountability and transparency, elections, environmental democracy, inclusion, openness and participation, and women’s political leadership. The paper also highlights potential risks and areas of development in the future. Finally, the paper shares five recommendations for WFD and democracy support organisations to consider advancing their ‘digital democracy’ agenda. This policy paper also offers additional information regarding AI classification and other resources for identifying good practice and innovative solutions. Its findings may be relevant to WFD staff members, international development practitioners, civil society organisations, and persons interested in using emerging technologies within governmental settings…(More)”.
Article by Inês Campos et al: “This perspective essay proposes Democracy Labs as new processes for developing democratic innovations that help tackle complex socio-ecological challenges within an increasingly unequal and polarised society, against the backdrop of democratic backsliding. Next to the current socio-ecological crisis, rapid technological innovations present both opportunities and challenges for democracy and call for democratic innovations. These innovations (e.g., mini-publics, collaborative governance and e-participation) offer alternative mechanisms for democratic participation and new forms of active citizenship, as well as new feedback mechanisms between citizens and traditional institutions of representative democracy. This essay thus introduces Democracy Labs, as citizen-centred processes for co-creating democratic innovations to inspire future transdisciplinary research and practice for a more inclusive and sustainable democracy. The approach is illustrated with examples from a Democracy Lab in Lisbon, reflecting on requirements for recruiting participants, the relevance of combining sensitising, reflection and ideation stages, and the importance of careful communication and facilitation processes guiding participants through co-creation activities…(More)”
By: Roshni Singh, Hannah Chafetz, and Stefaan G. Verhulst
The questions that society asks can transform public policy making, mobilize resources, and shape public discourse, yet decision makers around the world frequently focus on developing solutions rather than identifying the questions that need to be addressed to develop those solutions.
This blog provides a range of resources on the potential of questions for society. It includes readings on new approaches to formulating questions, how questions benefit public policy making and democracy, the importance of increasing the capacity for questioning at the individual level, and the role of questions in the age of AI and prompt engineering.
These readings underscore the need for a new science of questions – a new discipline solely focused on integrating participatory approaches for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing questions for society. This emerging discipline not only fosters creativity and critical thinking within societies but also empowers individuals and communities to engage actively in the questioning process, thereby promoting a more inclusive and equitable approach to addressing today’s societal challenges.
A few key takeaways from these readings:
Incorporating participatory approaches in questioning processes: Several of the readings discuss the value of including participatory approaches in questioning as a means to incorporate diverse perspectives, identify where there knowledge gaps, and ensure the questions prioritized reflect current needs. In particular, the readings emphasize the role of open innovation and co-creation principles, workshops, surveys, as ways to make the questioning process more collaborative.
Advancing individuals’ questioning capability: Teaching individuals to ask their own questions fosters agency and is essential for effective democratic participation. The readings recommend cultivating this skill from early education through adulthood to empower individuals to engage actively in decision-making processes.
Improving questioning processes for responsible AI use: In the era of AI and prompt engineering, how questions are framed is key for deriving meaningful responses to AI queries. More focus on participatory question formulation in the context of AI can help foster more inclusive and responsible data governance.
In “Crowdsourcing Research Questions in Science,” the authors examine how involving the general public in formulating research questions can enhance scientific inquiry. They analyze two crowdsourcing projects in the medical sciences and find that crowd-generated questions often restate problems but provide valuable cross-disciplinary insights. Although these questions typically rank lower in novelty and scientific impact compared to professional questions, they match the practical impact of professional research. The authors argue that crowdsourcing can improve research by offering diverse perspectives. They emphasize the importance of using effective selection methods to identify and prioritize the most valuable contributions from the crowd, ensuring that the highest quality questions are highlighted and addressed.
This journal article emphasizes the growing importance of openness and collaboration in scientific research. The authors identify the lack of a unified understanding of these practices due to differences in disciplinary approaches and propose an Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework (co-developed with 47 scholars) to bridge these knowledge gaps and synthesize information across fields. The authors argue that integrating Open Science and Open Innovation concepts can enhance researchers’ and practitioners’ understanding of how these practices influence the generation and dissemination of scientific insights and innovation. The article highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the complexities of societal, technical, and environmental challenges and provides a foundation for future research, policy discussions, and practical guidance in promoting open and collaborative scientific practices.
This figure from Beck et al., Industry and Innovation, 2022, outlines the Open Innovation in Science (OIS) framework, which connects scientific research with societal impacts through an iterative process. It highlights how feedback from scientific and societal outcomes influences research problems, boundary conditions, and antecedents, emphasizing continuous collaboration and openness in the research process.
In “The Surprising Power of Questions,” published in Harvard Business Review, Alison Wood Brooks and Leslie K. John highlight how asking questions drives learning, innovation, and relationship building within organizations. They argue that many executives focus on answers but underestimate how well-crafted questions can enhance communication, build trust, and uncover risks. Drawing from behavioral science, the authors show how the type, tone, and sequence of questions influence the effectiveness of conversations. By refining their questioning skills, individuals can boost emotional intelligence, foster deeper connections, and unlock valuable insights that benefit both themselves and their organizations.
The chart titled “Conversational Goals Matter” from “The Surprising Power of Questions” by Alison Wood Brooks and Leslie K. John (Harvard Business Review, May-June 2018) highlights tactics for handling competitive and cooperative conversations. It outlines strategies like asking direct questions to avoid evasive answers in competitive discussions, and using open-ended questions and building rapport in cooperative conversations. The chart offers practical approaches to improve communication and overcome common conversational challenges.
In “Choosing Policy-Relevant Research Questions,” Paul Kellner explains how social scientists can craft research questions that better inform policy decisions. He highlights the ongoing issue of social sciences not significantly impacting policy, as noted by experts like William Julius Wilson and Christopher Whitty. The article suggests methods for engaging policymakers in the research question formulation process, such as user engagement, co creation, surveys, voting, and consensus-building workshops. Kellner provides examples where policymakers directly participated in the research, resulting in more practical and relevant outcomes. He concludes that improving coordination between researchers and policymakers can enhance the policy impact of social science research.
In this Op-Ed, Andrew P. Minigan emphasizes the critical role of curiosity and question formulation in education. He argues that alongside the “4 Cs” (creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration), there should be a fifth C: curiosity. Asking questions enables students to identify knowledge gaps, think critically and creatively, and engage with peers. Research links curiosity to improved memory, academic achievement, and creativity. Despite these benefits, traditional teaching models often overlook curiosity. Minigan suggests teaching students to formulate questions to boost their curiosity and support educational goals. He concludes that nurturing curiosity is essential for developing innovative thinkers who can explore new, complex questions.
In this blog, Dan Rothstein highlights the importance of fostering “agency,” which is the ability of individuals to think and act independently, as a cornerstone of democracy. Rothstein and his colleague Luz Santana have spent over two decades at The Right Question Institute teaching people how to ask their own questions to enhance their participation in decision-making. They discovered that the inability to ask questions hinders involvement in decisions that impact individuals. Rothstein argues that learning to formulate questions is essential for developing agency and effective democratic participation. This skill should be taught from early education through adulthood. Despite its importance, many students do not learn this in college, so educators must focus on teaching question formulation at all levels. Rothstein concludes that empowering individuals to ask questions is vital for a strong democracy and should be a continuous effort across society.
In the chapter “From a Policy Problem to a Research Question: Getting It Right Together” from the Science for Policy Handbook, Marta Sienkiewicz emphasizes the importance of co-creation between researchers and policymakers to determine relevant research questions. She highlights the need for this approach due to the separation between research and policy cultures, and the differing natures of scientific (tame) and policy (wicked) problems. Sienkiewicz outlines a skills framework and provides examples from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), such as Knowledge Centres, staff exchanges, and collaboration facilitators, to foster interaction and collaboration. Engaging policymakers in the research question development process leads to more practical and relevant outcomes, builds trust, and strengthens relationships. This collaborative approach ensures that research is aligned with policy needs, increases the chances of evidence being used effectively in decision-making, and ultimately enhances the impact of scientific research on policy.
In “Methods for Collaboratively Identifying Research Priorities and Emerging Issues in Science and Policy,” the authors, William J. Sutherland et al., emphasize the importance of bridging the gap between scientific research and policy needs through collaborative approaches. They outline a structured, inclusive methodology that involves researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to jointly identify priority research questions. The approach includes gathering input from diverse stakeholders, iterative voting processes, and structured workshops to refine and prioritize questions, ensuring that the resulting research addresses critical societal and environmental challenges. These methods foster greater collaboration and ensure that scientific research is aligned with the practical needs of policymakers, thereby enhancing the relevance and impact of the research on policy decisions. This approach has been successfully applied in multiple fields, including conservation and agriculture, demonstrating its versatility in addressing both emerging issues and long-term policy priorities.
In this article co-authored with Anil Ananthaswamy, , Stefaan Verhulst emphasizes the crucial role of framing questions correctly, particularly in the era of AI and data. They highlight how ChatGPT’s success underscores the power of well-formulated questions and their impact on deriving meaningful answers. Verhulst and Ananthaswamy argue that society’s focus on answers has overshadowed the importance of questioning, which shapes scientific inquiry, public policy, and data utilization. They call for a new science of questions that integrates diverse fields and promotes critical thinking, data literacy, and inclusive questioning to address biases and improve decision-making. This interdisciplinary effort aims to shift the emphasis from merely seeking answers to understanding the context and purpose behind the questions.
Image of teachers are seen behind a laptop during a workshop on ChatGPT bot in the Swiss canton of Geneva from Fabrice Coffrini
In this chapter published in “Global Digital Data Governance: Polycentric Perspectives”, Stefaan Verhulst explores the crucial role of formulating questions in ensuring responsible data usage. Verhulst argues that, in our data-driven society, responsibly handling data is key to maximizing public good and minimizing risks. He proposes a polycentric approach where the right questions are co-defined to enhance the social impact of data science. Drawing from both conceptual and practical knowledge, including his experience with The 100 Questions Initiative, Verhulst emphasizes that a participatory methodology in question formulation can democratize data use, ensuring data minimization, proportionality, participation, and accountability. By shifting from a supply-driven to a demand-driven approach, Verhulst envisions a new “science of questions” that complements data science, fostering a more inclusive and responsible data governance framework.
As we navigate the complexities of our rapidly changing world, the importance of asking the right questions cannot be overstated. We invite researchers, educators, policymakers, and curious minds alike to delve deeper into new approaches for questioning. By fostering an environment that values and prioritizes well-crafted questions, we can drive innovation, enhance education, improve public policy, and harness the potential of AI and data science. In the coming months, The GovLab, with the support of the Henry Luce Foundation, will be exploring these topics further through a series of roundtable discussions. Are you working on participatory approaches to questioning and are interested in getting involved? Email Stefaan G. Verhulst, Co-Founder and Chief R&D at The GovLab, at sverhulst@thegovlab.org.
