Selected Readings: Exploring the Power of Questions For Society


Image by Laurin Steffens from Unsplash

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.

***

Beck, Susanne, Tiare-Maria Basseur, Marion Kristin Poetz, and Henry Sauermann. “Crowdsourcing Research Questions in Science.” Research Policy 51, no. 4 (May 2022).

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.

Beck, Susanne, Carsten Bergenholtz, Marcel Bogers, Tiare-Maria Brasseur, Marie Louise Conradsen, Diletta Di Marco, Andreas P. Distel, et al. “The Open Innovation in Science Research Field: A Collaborative Conceptualisation Approach.” Industry and Innovation 29, no. 2 (February 7, 2022): 136–85.

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.

Brooks, Alison Wood, and Leslie K. John. “The Surprising Power of Questions.” Harvard Business Review, May 1, 2018. 

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.

Kellner, Paul. “Choosing Policy-Relevant Research Questions.” Good Questions Review, May 21, 2024.

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.

Minigan, Andrew P. “The Importance of Curiosity and Questions in 21st-Century Learning.” Education Week, May 24, 2017, sec. Teaching & Learning, Curriculum.

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.

Rothstein, Dan. “Questions, Agency and Democracy.” Medium (blog), February 25, 2017.

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.

Sienkiewicz, Marta. “Chapter 6 – From a Policy Problem to a Research Question: Getting It Right Together.” In Science for Policy Handbook, edited by Vladimír Šucha and Marta Sienkiewicz, 52–61. Elsevier, 2020. 

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.

Sutherland, William J. , Erica Fleishman, Michael B. Mascia, Jules Pretty, and Murray A. Rudd. “Methods for Collaboratively Identifying Research Priorities and Emerging Issues in Science and Policy.” Methods in Ecology and Evolutions 2, no. 3 (June 2, 2011): 238–47. 

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.

Verhulst, Stefaan G., and Anil Ananthaswamy. “Debate: ChatGPT Reminds Us Why Good Questions Matter.” The Conversation, February 7, 2023. 

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

Verhulst, Stefaan G. “Questions as a Device for Data Responsibility: Toward a New Science of Questions to Steer and Complement the Use of Data Science for the Public Good in a Polycentric Way .” Aguerre, C., Campbell-Verduyn, M., & Scholte, J. A., Global Digital Data Governance: Polycentric Perspectives, Properties and Controversies, February 28, 2023.

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.

Table 1 from Verhulst, Stefaan G. “Questions as a Device for Data Responsibility: Toward a New Science of Questions to Steer and Complement the Use of Data Science for the Public Good in a Polycentric Way,” outlines how questions serve as tools for data responsibility across three principles: minimization and proportionality, participation, and accountability. Questions help determine data collection purposes, develop retention policies, foster inclusive debates, secure social licenses for data re-use, identify stakeholders, create feedback loops, and enhance accountability by anticipating risks.

***

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.

Hopes over fears: Can democratic deliberation increase positive emotions concerning the future?


Paper by Mikko Leino and Katariina Kulha: “Deliberative mini-publics have often been considered to be a potential way to promote future-oriented thinking. Still, thinking about the future can be hard as it can evoke negative emotions such as stress and anxiety. This article establishes why a more positive outlook towards the future can benefit long-term decision-making. Then, it explores whether and to what extent deliberative mini-publics can facilitate thinking about the future by moderating negative emotions and encouraging positive emotions. We analyzed an online mini-public held in the region of Satakunta, Finland, organized to involve the public in the drafting process of a regional plan extending until the year 2050. In addition to the standard practices related to mini-publics, the Citizens’ Assembly included an imaginary time travel exercise, Future Design, carried out with half of the participants. Our analysis makes use of both survey and qualitative data. We found that democratic deliberation can promote positive emotions, like hopefulness and compassion, and lessen negative emotions, such as fear and confusion, related to the future. There were, however, differences in how emotions developed in the various small groups. Interviews with participants shed further light onto how participants felt during the event and how their sentiments concerning the future changed…(More)”

Guidelines for Participatory and Inclusive AI


Guidelines by the Partnership on AI’s Global Task Force for Inclusive AI: “..The objective is to help practitioners navigate the common challenges that arise in the process of stakeholder engagement to ensure their efforts remain authentic and as equity-oriented as possible. The resource aims to support individuals’ efforts in aligning their work with the needs of the communities they wish to serve, while reducing the likelihood of harms and risks those communities may face due to the development and deployment of AI technologies.

The Guidelines are separated into three major parts:

  • Guidance & Guardrails Recommended best practices and guardrails for participatory stakeholder engagement strategies, including specific recommendations by common use cases for engaging with stakeholders as part of the AI development process
  • Emerging Resources: AI Tools for Participatory and Inclusive AI Overview of the latest AI-enabled tools proposed to support stakeholder engagement activities, including a discussion of their potential applications and risks
  • Additional Background Details about why we created this resource, the people who provided their expertise for the initial draft, and foundational concepts that serve as the basis for the Global Task Force’s recommendations and guidance…(More)”.

Global Citizen Deliberation on Artificial Intelligence


Report by Connected by Data: “This report explores how global citizen deliberation, particularly drawing on the concept of a global citizens’ assembly, could and should shape the future of artificial intelligence. Drawing on an extended design lab of in-depth interviews and workshops that took place in mid-2024, it presents a series of options for bringing the voices of those affected by AI development and deployment into decision-making spaces, through processes that can deliver informed and inclusive dialogue… In this report we address how established and emerging sites of global AI development and governance can integrate citizen deliberation, setting out five template options for citizens’ assemblies on AI: deliberative review of AI summits and scientific reports; an independent global assembly on AI; a series of distributed dialogues organized across the globe; a technology-enabled collective intelligence process; and commissioning the inclusion of AI topics in other deliberative processes…(More)”.

Reviving the commons: A scoping review of urban and digital commoning


Report by James Henderson and Oliver Escobar: “The review aims to contribute to the growing discourse on the commons, highlighting its significance in contemporary societies and its potential as an alternative to traditional forms of socioeconomic and political organisation via the state and/or the market. Practitioners in the field argue that we are witnessing a revival of the commons in the 21st century. This report interrogates the nature of that revival and explores key concepts, examples, trends and debates in theory and practice, while outlining an emerging research agenda…(More)”.

Leadership as Stewardship


Book by Marian Iszatt-White: “Exploring different understandings of stewardship across a range of research domains and cultures, this insightful book examines the tensions between competing perspectives and their implications for leadership. Marian Iszatt-White proposes ‘leadership-as-stewardship’ as a new signifier for leadership research, providing practical guidance to leaders navigating the challenges and trade-offs of the Anthropocene.

Leadership as Stewardship identifies how the apparent inadequacy of modern leadership coincides with a shift in scholarship away from practical inquiry and towards a range of aspirational approaches, including authentic, sustainable, responsible and ethical. Iszatt-White proposes stewardship as an alternative to these aspirational forms of leadership and challenges the ability of Western, Enlightenment-based thinking to solve global issues created by that same thinking. The book concludes that it is time to place the more enact-able construct of stewardship at the heart of leadership aspirations and scholarly activities.

Interdisciplinary in scope, this book will be vital for scholars of leadership, management and organization studies. Highlighting the ability of stewardship to combat perceived failings in leadership as both a construct and a practice, it is also valuable to policymakers, management educators and leadership practitioners…(More)”.

Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties


Paper by Claudio Novelli et al: “The article argues that AI can enhance the measurement and implementation of democratic processes within political parties, known as Intra-Party Democracy (IPD). It identifies the limitations of traditional methods for measuring IPD, which often rely on formal parameters, self-reported data, and tools like surveys. Such limitations lead to partial data collection, rare updates, and significant resource demands. To address these issues, the article suggests that specific data management and Machine Learning techniques, such as natural language processing and sentiment analysis, can improve the measurement and practice of IPD…(More)”.

Toward a citizen science framework for public policy evaluation


Paper by Giovanni Esposito et al: “This study pioneers the use of citizen science in evaluating Freedom of Information laws, with a focus on Belgium, where since its 1994 enactment, Freedom of Information’s effectiveness has remained largely unexamined. Utilizing participatory methods, it engages citizens in assessing transparency policies, significantly contributing to public policy evaluation methodology. The research identifies regional differences in Freedom of Information implementation across Belgian municipalities, highlighting that larger municipalities handle requests more effectively, while administrations generally show reluctance to respond to requests from perceived knowledgeable individuals. This phenomenon reflects a broader European caution toward well-informed requesters. By integrating citizen science, this study not only advances our understanding of Freedom of Information law effectiveness in Belgium but also advocates for a more inclusive, collaborative approach to policy evaluation. It addresses the gap in researchers’ experience with citizen science, showcasing its vast potential to enhance participatory governance and policy evaluation…(More)”.

DAOs of Collective Intelligence? Unraveling the Complexity of Blockchain Governance in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations


Paper by Mark C. Ballandies, Dino Carpentras, and Evangelos Pournaras: “Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) have transformed organizational structures by shifting from traditional hierarchical control to decentralized approaches, leveraging blockchain and cryptoeconomics. Despite managing significant funds and building global networks, DAOs face challenges like declining participation, increasing centralization, and inabilities to adapt to changing environments, which stifle innovation. This paper explores DAOs as complex systems and applies complexity science to explain their inefficiencies. In particular, we discuss DAO challenges, their complex nature, and introduce the self-organization mechanisms of collective intelligence, digital democracy, and adaptation. By applying these mechansims to improve DAO design and construction, a practical design framework for DAOs is created. This contribution lays a foundation for future research at the intersection of complexity science and DAOs…(More)”.

AI has a democracy problem. Citizens’ assemblies can help.


Article by Jack Stilgoe: “…With AI, beneath all the hype, some companies know that they have a democracy problem. OpenAI admitted as much when they funded a program of pilot projects for what they called “Democratic Inputs to AI.” There have been some interesting efforts to involve the public in rethinking cutting-edge AI. A collaboration between Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s competitors, and the Collective Intelligence Project asked 1000 Americans to help shape what they called “Collective Constitutional AI.” They were asked to vote on statements such as “the AI should not be toxic” and “AI should be interesting,” and they were given the option of adding their own statements (one of the stranger statements reads “AI should not spread Marxist communistic ideology”). Anthropic used these inputs to tweak its “Claude” Large Language Model, which, when tested against standard AI benchmarks, seemed to help mitigate the model’s biases.

In using the word “constitutional,” Anthropic admits that, in making AI systems, they are doing politics by other means. We should welcome the attempt to open up. But, ultimately, these companies are interested in questions of design, not regulation. They would like there to be a societal consensus, a set of human values to which they can “align” their systems. Politics is rarely that neat…(More)”.