Announcing the Youth Engagement Toolkit for Responsible Data Reuse: An Innovative Methodology for the Future of Data-Driven Services

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Elena Murray, Moiz Shaikh, and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “Young people seeking essential services — whether mental health support, education, or government benefits — often face a critical challenge: they are asked to share their data without having a say in how it is used or for what purpose. While the responsible use of data can help tailor services to better meet their needs and ensure that vulnerable populations are not overlooked, a lack of trust in data collection and usage can have the opposite effect.

When young people feel uncertain or uneasy about how their data is being handled, they may adopt privacy-protective behaviors — choosing not to seek services at all or withholding critical information out of fear of misuse. This risks deepening existing inequalities rather than addressing them.

To build trust, those designing and delivering services must engage young people meaningfully in shaping data practices. Understanding their concerns, expectations, and values is key to aligning data use with their preferences. But how can this be done effectively?

This question was at the heart of a year-long global collaboration through the NextGenData project, which brought together partners worldwide to explore solutions. Today, we are releasing a key deliverable of that project: The Youth Engagement Toolkit for Responsible Data Reuse:

Based on a methodology developed and piloted during the NextGenData project, the Toolkit describes an innovative methodology for engaging young people on responsible data reuse practices, to improve services that matter to them…(More)”.

Redesigning Public Organizations: From “what” to “how

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by the Transition Collective: “Government organizations and their leaders are in a pinch. They are caught between pressures from politicians, citizens and increasingly complex external environments on the one hand — and from civil servants calling for new ways of working, thriving and belonging on the other hand. They have to enable meaningful, joined-up and efficient services for people, leveraging digital and physical resources, while building an attractive organizational culture. Indeed, the challenge is to build systems as human as the people they are intended to serve.

While this creates massive challenges for public sector organizations, this is also an opportunity to reimagine our institutions to meet the challenges of today and the future. To succeed, we must not only think about other models of organization — we also have to think of other ways of changing them.

Traditionally, we think of the organization as something static, a goal we arrive at or a fixed model we decide upon. If asked to describe their organization, most civil servants will point to an organigram — and more often than not it will consist of a number of boxes and lines, ordered in a hierarchy.

But in today’s world of complex challenges, accelerated frequency of change and dynamic interplay between the public sector and its surroundings, such a fixed model is less and less fit for the purposes it must fulfill. Not only does it not allow the collective intelligence and creativity of the organization’s members to be fully unleashed, it also does not allow for the speed and adaptability required by today’s turbulent environment. It does not allow for truly joined up, meaningful human services.

Unfreezing the organization

Rather than thinking mainly about models and forms, we should think of organizational design as an act or a series of actions. In other words, we should think about the organization not just as a what but also as a how: Less as a set of boxes describing a power hierarchy, and more as a set of living, organic roles and relationships. We need to thaw up our organizations from their frozen state — and keep them warmer and more fluid.

In this piece, we suggest that many efforts to reimagine public sector organizations have failed because the challenge of transforming an organization has been underestimated. We draw on concrete experiences from working with international and Danish public sector institutions, in particular in health and welfare services.

We propose a set of four approaches which, taken together, can support the work of redesigning organizations to be more ambitious, free, human, creative and self-managing — and thus better suited to meet the ever more complex challenges they are faced with…(More)”.

Bayes is not a phase

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by dynomight: “Because everyone uses Bayesian reasoning all the time, even if they don’t think of it that way. Arguably, we’re born Bayesian and do it instinctively. It’s normal and natural and—I daresay—almost boring. “Bayesian reasoning” is just a slight formalization of everyday thought.

It’s not a trend. It’s forever. But it’s forever like arithmetic is forever: Strange to be obsessed with it, but really strange to make fun of someone for using it.

Here, I’ll explain what Bayesian reasoning is, why it’s so fundamental, why people argue about it, and why much of that controversy is ultimately a boring semantic debate of no interest to an enlightened person like yourself. Then, for the haters, I’ll give some actually good reasons to be skeptical about how useful it is in practice.

I won’t use any equations. That’s not because I don’t think you can take it, but Bayesian reasoning isn’t math. It’s a concept. The typical explanations use lots of math and kind of gesture around the concept, but never seem to get to the core of it, which I think leads people to miss the forest for the trees…(More)”.

Organisations in the Age of Algorithms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Phanish Puranam: “When Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai recently revealed that 25 percent of the company’s software is now machine-generated, it underscored how quickly artificial intelligence is reshaping the workplace. 

What does this mean for how we organise and manage? Will there still be room for humans in tomorrow’s organisations? And what might their work conditions look like? I tackle these questions in my new book “Re-Humanize: How to Build Human-Centric Organizations in the Age of Algorithms”. 

The answers are not a given. They will depend on what we choose to do – what kinds of organisations we design. I make the case that successful organisation designs will have to pursue both goal-centricity (i.e. achieving objectives) and human-centricity (i.e. creating social environments that people find attractive). A myopic focus on only one or the other will not bode well for us.

The dual purpose of organisations

Why focus on organisations at a time when technology seems to be making such exciting strides? This was the very first question that INSEAD alumna Joanna Gordon asked me in a recent digital@INSEAD webinar. 

My answer: Homo sapiens’s most impressive accomplishments, from building the pyramids to developing Covid-19 vaccines, are not individual achievements. They were possible only because many people worked together effectively. “How to organise groups to attain goals” is our oldest general-purpose technology (GPT!). 

But there is more. To humans, organisations don’t just help accomplish goals. We are a species that has evolved to survive and thrive in groups, and organisations (i.e. groups with goals) are the natural habitat of Homo sapiens. They provide us with a sense of community and, as research has shown, help us strike a balance between our needs for social connection, individual autonomy and feeling capable and effective…(More)”.

What 40 Million Devices Can Teach Us About Digital Literacy in America

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Juan M. Lavista Ferres: “…For the first time, Microsoft is releasing a privacy-protected dataset that provides new insights into digital engagement across the United States. This dataset, built from anonymized usage data from 40 million Windows devices, offers the most comprehensive view ever assembled of how digital tools are being used across the country. It goes beyond surveys and self-reported data to provide a real-world look at software application usage across 28,000 ZIP codes, creating a more detailed and nuanced understanding of digital engagement than any existing commercial or government study.

In collaboration with leading researchers at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania, we analyzed this dataset and developed two key indices to measure digital literacy:

  • Media & Information Composite Index (MCI): This index captures general computing activity, including media consumption, information gathering, and usage of productivity applications like word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations.
  • Content Creation & Computation Index (CCI): This index measures engagement with more specialized digital applications, such as content creation tools like Photoshop and software development environments.

By combining these indices with demographic data, several important insights emerge:

Urban-Rural Disparities Exist—But the Gaps Are Uneven While rural areas often lag in digital engagement, disparities within urban areas are just as pronounced. Some city neighborhoods have digital activity levels on par with major tech hubs, while others fall significantly behind, revealing a more complex digital divide than previously understood.

Income and Education Are Key Drivers of Digital Engagement Higher-income and higher-education areas show significantly greater engagement in content creation and computational tasks. This suggests that digital skills—not just access—are critical in shaping economic mobility and opportunity. Even in places where broadband availability is the same, digital usage patterns vary widely, demonstrating that access alone is not enough.

Infrastructure Alone Won’t Close the Digital Divide Providing broadband connectivity is essential, but it is not a sufficient solution to the challenges of digital literacy. Our findings show that even in well-connected regions, significant skill gaps persist. This means that policies and interventions must go beyond infrastructure investments to include comprehensive digital education, skills training, and workforce development initiatives…(More)”.

On conspiracy theories of ignorance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by In “On the Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, Karl Popper identifies a kind of “epistemological optimism”—an optimism about “man’s power to discern truth and to acquire knowledge”—that has played a significant role in the history of philosophy. At the heart of this optimistic view, Popper argues, is the “doctrine that truth is manifest”:

“Truth may perhaps be veiled, and removing the veil may not be easy. But once the naked truth stands revealed before our eyes, we have the power to see it, to distinguish it from falsehood, and to know that it is truth.”

According to Popper, this doctrine inspired the birth of modern science, technology, and liberalism. If the truth is manifest, there is “no need for any man to appeal to authority in matters of truth because each man carried the sources of knowledge in himself”:

“Man can know: thus he can be free. This is the formula which explains the link between epistemological optimism and the ideas of liberalism.”

Although a liberal himself, Popper argues that the doctrine of manifest truth is false. “The simple truth,” he writes, “is that truth is often hard to come by, and that once found it may easily be lost again.” Moreover, he argues that the doctrine is pernicious. If we think the truth is manifest, we create “the need to explain falsehood”:

“Knowledge, the possession of truth, need not be explained. But how can we ever fall into error if truth is manifest? The answer is: through our own sinful refusal to see the manifest truth; or because our minds harbour prejudices inculcated by education and tradition, or other evil influences which have perverted our originally pure and innocent minds.”

In this way, the doctrine of manifest truth inevitably gives rise to “the conspiracy theory of ignorance”…

In previous work, I have criticised how the concept of “misinformation” is applied by researchers and policy-makers. Roughly, I think that narrow applications of the term (e.g., defined in terms of fake news) are legitimate but focus on content that is relatively rare and largely symptomatic of other problems, at least in Western democracies. In contrast, broad definitions inevitably get applied in biased and subjective ways, transforming misinformation research and policy-making into “partisan combat by another name”…(More)”

Conflicts over access to Americans’ personal data emerging across federal government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Caitlin Andrews: “The Trump administration’s fast-moving efforts to limit the size of the U.S. federal bureaucracy, primarily through the recently minted Department of Government Efficiency, are raising privacy and data security concerns among current and former officials across the government, particularly as the administration scales back positions charged with privacy oversight. Efforts to limit the independence of a host of federal agencies through a new executive order — including the independence of the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission — are also ringing alarm bells among civil society and some legal experts.

According to CNN, several staff within the Office of Personnel Management’s privacy and records keeping department were fired last week. Staff who handle communications and respond to Freedom of Information Act requests were also let go. Though the entire privacy team was not fired, according to the OPM, details about what kind of oversight will remain within the department were limited. The report also states the staff’s termination date is 15 April.

It is one of several moves the Trump administration has made in recent days reshaping how entities access and provide oversight to government agencies’ information.

The New York Times reports on a wide range of incidents within the government where DOGE’s efforts to limit fraudulent government spending by accessing sensitive agency databases have run up against staffers who are concerned about the privacy of Americans’ personal information. In one incident, Social Security Administration acting Commissioner Michelle King was fired after resisting a request from DOGE to access the agency’s database. “The episode at the Social Security Administration … has played out repeatedly across the federal government,” the Times reported…(More)”.

Being an Effective Policy Analyst in the Age of Information Overload

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Adam Thierer: “The biggest challenge of being an effective technology policy analyst, academic, or journalist these days is that the shelf life of your products is measured in weeks — and sometimes days — instead of months. Because of that, I’ve been adjusting my own strategies over time to remain effective.

The thoughts and advice I offer here are meant mostly for other technology policy analysts, whether you are a student or young professional just breaking into the field, or someone in the middle of your career looking to take it to the next level. But much of what I’ll say here is generally applicable across the field of policy analysis. It’s just a lot more relevant for people in the field of tech policy because of its fast-moving, ever-changing nature.

This essay will repeatedly reference two realities that have shaped my life both as an average citizen and as an academic and policy analyst: First, we used to live in a world of information scarcity, but we now live in a world of information abundance–and that trend is only accelerating. Second, life and work in a world of information overload is simultaneously a wonderful and awful thing, but one thing is for sure: there is absolutely no going back to the sleepy days of information scarcity.

If you care to be an effective policy analyst today, then you have to come to grips with these new realities. Here are a few tips…(More)”.

Cities, health, and the big data revolution

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Harvard Public Health: “Cities influence our health in unexpected ways. From sidewalks to crosswalks, the built environment affects how much we move, impacting our risk for diseases like obesity and diabetes. A recent New York City study underscores that focusing solely on infrastructure, without understanding how people use it, can lead to ineffective interventions. Researchers analyzed over two million Google Street View images, combining them with health and demographic data to reveal these dynamics. Harvard Public Health spoke with Rumi Chunara, director of New York University’s Center for Health Data Science and lead author of the study.

Why study this topic?

We’re seeing an explosion of new data sources, like street-view imagery, being used to make decisions. But there’s often a disconnect—people using these tools don’t always have the public health knowledge to interpret the data correctly. We wanted to highlight the importance of combining data science and domain expertise to ensure interventions are accurate and impactful.

What did you find?

We discovered that the relationship between built environment features and health outcomes isn’t straightforward. It’s not just about having sidewalks; it’s about how often people are using them. Improving physical activity levels in a community could have a far greater impact on health outcomes than simply adding more infrastructure.

It also revealed the importance of understanding the local context. For instance, Google Street View data sometimes misclassifies sidewalks, particularly near highways or bridges, leading to inaccurate conclusions. Relying solely on this data, without accounting for these nuances, could result in less effective interventions…(More)”.

Randomize NIH grant giving

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Vinay Prasad: “A pause in NIH study sections has been met with fear and anxiety from researchers. At many universities, including mine, professors live on soft money. No grants? If you are assistant professor, you can be asked to pack your desk. If you are a full professor, the university slowly cuts your pay until you see yourself out. Everyone talks about you afterwards, calling you a failed researcher. They laugh, a little too long, and then blink back tears as they wonder if they are next. Of course, your salary doubles in the new job and you are happier, but you are still bitter and gossiped about.

In order to apply for NIH grants, you have to write a lot of bullshit. You write specific aims and methods, collect bios from faculty and more. There is a section where you talk about how great your department and team is— this is the pinnacle of the proverbial expression, ‘to polish a turd.’ You invite people to work on your grant if they have a lot of papers or grants or both, and they agree to be on your grant even though they don’t want to talk to you ever again.

You submit your grant and they hire someone to handle your section. They find three people to review it. Ideally, they pick people who have no idea what you are doing or why it is important, and are not as successful as you, so they can hate read your proposal. If, despite that, they give you a good score, you might be discussed at study section.

The study section assembles scientists to discuss your grant. As kids who were picked last in kindergarten basketball, they focus on the minutiae. They love to nitpick small things. If someone on study section doesn’t like you, they can tank you. In contrast, if someone loves you, they can’t really single handedly fund you.

You might wonder if study section leaders are the best scientists. Rest assured. They aren’t. They are typically mid career, mediocre scientists. (This is not just a joke, data support this claim see www.drvinayprasad.com). They rarely have written extremely influential papers.

Finally, your proposal gets a percentile score. Here is the chance of funding by percentile. You might get a chance to revise your grant if you just fall short….Given that the current system is onerous and likely flawed, you would imagine that NIH leadership has repeatedly tested whether the current method is superior than say a modified lottery, aka having an initial screen and then randomly giving out the money.

Of course not. Self important people giving out someone else’s money rarely study their own processes. If study sections are no better than lottery, that would mean a lot of NIH study section officers would no longer need to work hard from home half the day, freeing up money for one more grant.

Let’s say we take $200 million and randomize it. Half of it is allocated to being given out in the traditional method, and the other half is allocated to a modified lottery. If an application is from a US University and passes a minimum screen, it is enrolled in the lottery.

Then we follow these two arms into the future. We measure publications, citations, h index, the average impact factor of journals in which the papers are published, and more. We even take a subset of the projects and blind reviewers to score the output. Can they tell which came from study section?…(More)”.