Blog by Lucy Mason: “But the modern world is too complicated to innovate alone. Coming up with the idea is the easy bit: developing and implementing it inevitably involves navigating complex and choppy waters: multiple people, funding routes, personal agendas, legal complexity, and strategic fuzziness. All too often, great ideas fail to become reality not because the idea wouldn’t work, but because everything in the ecosystem seems (accidentally) designed to prevent it from working.
Given that innovation is a key Government priority, and so many organisations and people are dedicated to make it happen (such as Innovate UK), this lack of success seems odd. The problem does not lie with the R&D base: despite relative underinvestment by the UK Government the UK punches well above its weight in world-leading R&D. Being an entrepreneur is of course, hard work, high risk and prone to failure even for the most dedicated individuals. But are there particular features which inhibit how innovation is developed, scaled, implemented, and adopted in the UK? I would argue there are three key factors at play: overwhelm (too much), complexity (too vague), and ‘herding cats’ (too hard)…(More)”.
Blog by Toralf Stark, Norma Osterberg-Kaufmann and Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach: “…Many criticisms of conceptions of democracy are directed more at the institutional design than at its normative underpinnings. These include such things as the concept of representativeness. We propose focussing more on the normative foundations assessed by the different institutional frameworks than discussing the institutional frameworks themselves. We develop a new concept, which we call the ‘core principle of democracy’. By doing so, we address the conceptual and methodological puzzles theoretically and empirically. Thus, we embrace a paradigm shift.
Collecting data is ultimately meaningless if we do not find ways to assess, summarise and theorise it. Kei Nishiyama argued we must ‘shift our attention away from the concept of democracy and towards concepts of democracy’. By the term concept we, in line with Nishiyama, are following Rawls. Rawls claimed that ‘the concept of democracy refers to a single, common principle that transcends differences and on which everyone agrees’. In contrast with this, ‘ideas of democracy (…) refer to different, sometimes contested ideas based on a common concept’. This is what Laurence Whitehead calls the ‘timeless essence of democracy’….
Democracy is a latent construct and, by nature, not directly observable. Nevertheless, we are searching for indicators and empirically observable characteristics we can assign to democratic conceptions. However, by focusing only on specific patterns of institutions, only sometimes derived from theoretical considerations, we block our view of its multiple meanings. Thus, we’ve no choice but to search behind the scenes for the underlying ‘core’ principle the institutions serve.
The singular core principle that all concepts of democracy seek to realise is political self-efficacy…(More)”.
Blog by Sampriti Saxena and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have the potential to solve the world’s biggest challenges. However, they also come with certain risks to individuals and groups. As these technologies become more prevalent around the world, we need to consider the ethical ramifications of AI use to identify and rectify potential harms. Equally, we need to consider the various associated issues from a global perspective, not assuming that a single approach will satisfy different cultural and societal expectations.
In February 2021, The Governance Lab (The GovLab), the NYU Tandon School of Engineering, the Global AI Ethics Consortium (GAIEC), the Center for Responsible AI @ NYU (R/AI), and the Technical University of Munich’s (TUM) Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence (IEAI) launched AI Ethics: Global Perspectives. …A year and a half later, the course has grown to 38 modules, contributed by 40 faculty members representing over 20 countries. Our conversations with faculty members and our experiences with the course modules have yielded a wealth of knowledge about AI ethics. In keeping with the values of openness and transparency that underlie the course, we summarized these insights into ten learnings to share with a broader audience. In what follows, we outline our key lessons from experts around the world.
Our Ten Learnings:
Broaden the Conversation
The Public as a Stakeholder
Centering Diversity and Inclusion in Ethics
Building Effective Systems of Accountability
Establishing Trust
Ask the Right Questions
The Role of Independent Research
Humans at the Center
Our Shared Responsibility
The Challenge and Potential for a Global Framework…(More)”.
Article by Govind Shivkumar and Alex Krasodomski-Jones: “…Omidyar Network was proud to support the creation of “The Open Road,” a new report by our partners at Demos that vividly highlights the many dangers facing open infrastructure — and lays out a clear and achievable path to securing its sustainable future. In short, the report urges philanthropies to take concrete steps, with significant funding, to bolster open-source software and open standards, and the people who keep the infrastructure working.
The value of open-source code and the movement behind it
Everything from hospitals and banks to social media and messaging platforms run on open-source software; that is, mostly free “source code” that anyone can inspect, modify, and enhance to build their own digital applications. In complement, open standards — like HTML, a common way of coding a website — help facilitate interoperability and data exchanges between different products or services. Both of these “encourage a decentralized community of developers to collaborate on projects and jointly benefit from the resulting software”.
A secure, open technology system is immensely valuable to companies and governments. It facilitates connections between their technologies and other systems, which increases the value of their tools; it is easy to adopt and make changes; and it avoids the pitfalls of reinventing the wheel or reinvesting resources. Because of that vast flexibility, developers and engineers can innovate for the user’s needs faster and more cost-effectively, giving the public a meaningful choice of which interconnected apps, devices, technologies they want to use.
“More openness means more innovation. More transparency means more scrutiny, which means fewer overlooked security vulnerabilities. Openness favors the development of ‘good technology,’ which embeds privacy, security, and other protections in its design.”
The challenges facing open infrastructure
The ecosystem is vast and acutely vulnerable. Period catastrophes like the Heartbleed bug which was exposed in 2014, and later security flaws, such as log4shell and log4J, threatened millions of digital applications worldwide. Other weaknesses are simply the result of neglect and lack of proper investment and upkeep. When security vulnerabilities cause cracks in the infrastructure, allowing malicious actors to wreak havoc, the startled world briefly takes notice…(More)”
Blog by Yuki Mitsuda: “The Open Data Policy Lab’s City Incubator program was established in September 2021 to help realize the Third Wave of Open Data at the subnational level by building data capacity among city intrapreneurs. In its first iteration, the program supported innovators from ten cities around the world to better use data to address the opportunities and challenges they face.
Reflecting on the six-month program, the work enabled participants to meet the needs of their cities and the people within them. They also revealed shared themes across cities — common challenges and issues that defined urban, data-driven work in the 21st century. This blog explores one of the emerging themes we saw from participants in the City Incubator program: the intersection of equity, data, and city governments…
Three of our city incubator participants designed their data innovations around the ways cities and citizens can use data to measure and improve equity.
Jennifer Bodnarchuk, a Senior Data Scientist at the Innovation & Technology Department in the City of Winnipeg, for example, led the development of a Diversity Dashboard that quantified and visualized their municipal government’s workforce representation. The tool can be used to measure the level of diversity represented in city-wide employment to move towards equitable hiring in the public sector.
Henry Xavier Hernandez, the Chief Information Officer at the Information Technology Department in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and his team leveraged the City Incubator to develop Citizen 360, a public market analysis platform that helps businesses, organizations, and individuals identify economic opportunities in the city. This tool can aid small business owners from all backgrounds who are navigating the journey of starting a new business.
Andrea Calderon led Albuquerque’s Equity Index, which helps evaluate the reach of city service distribution with the goal of increasing municipal investment in pockets of the city where equitable city service provision has not yet been achieved. Albuquerque’s Equity Index work entailed assessing air quality in the city through the framework of cumulative impacts, which measures “exposures, public health, or environmental effects from the combined emissions in a geographic area” in pursuit of environmental justice…(More)”.
Essay by Erica Dorn and Federico Vaz: “We live in an era of hyper-mobility, marked by the mass movement of people virtually, trans-locally, and globally. More people are on the move than ever before in human history. Today, dispersed across the globe, there are between 272 million and one billion migrants. More than 15 million people worldwide live without nationality, and an even larger number of people live undocumented.
Much like James C. Scott, it can be tempting to think that the state has always seemed to be the enemy of ‘people who move around‘. For the kinetic elite, borders are thresholds of access. Meanwhile, for a growing number of displaced people, borders represent inhumane exclusion.
More than 15 million people worldwide live without nationality, and an even larger number of people live undocumented
Current democratic structures designed to be representative of the people cannot adapt to the increasing number of people on the move. As a result, an overwhelming gap exists between the rapidly changing reality of democracies made up of ineligible voters, and the need for inclusive participation in the democratic process.
In the US, several cities, including New York, have taken measures to pass non-citizen voting policies. These promote the inclusion of more residents in local elections. However, given generally low voter turnout, it will take more than voting rights to create more inclusive democracies…(More)”.
GigaBlog: “Just out in GigaByte is the latest data release from Mosquito Alert, a citizen science system for investigating and managing disease-carrying mosquitoes, and is part of our WHO-sponsored series on vector borne human diseases. Presenting 13,700 new database records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) repository, all linked to photographs submitted by citizen volunteers and validated by entomological experts to determine if it provides evidence of the presence of any of the mosquito vectors of top concern in Europe. This is the latest of a new special issue of papers presenting biodiversity data for research on human diseases health, incentivising data sharing to fill important particular species and geographic gaps. As big fans of citizen science (and Mosquito Alert), its great to see this new data showcased in the series.
Vector-borne diseases account for more than 17% of all infectious diseases in humans. There are large gaps in knowledge related to these vectors, and data mobilization campaigns are required to improve data coverage to help research on vector-borne diseases and human health. As part of these efforts, GigaScience Press has partnered with the GBIF; and has been supported by TDR, the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, hosted at the World Health Organization. Through this we launched this “Vectors of human disease” thematic series. Incentivising the sharing of this extremely important data, Article Processing Charges have been waived to assist with the global call for novel data. This effort has already led to the release of newly digitised location data for over 600,000 vector specimens observed across the Americas and Europe.
While paying credit to such a large number of volunteers, creating such a large public collection of validated mosquito images allows this dataset to be used to train machine-learning models for vector detection and classification. Sharing the data in this novel manner meant the authors of these papers had to set up a new credit system to evaluate contributions from multiple and diverse collaborators, which included university researchers, entomologists, and other non-academics such as independent researchers and citizen scientists. In the GigaByte paper these are acknowledged through collaborative authorship for the Mosquito Alert Digital Entomology Network and the Mosquito Alert Community…(More)”.
Stefaan G. Verhulst & Sampriti Saxena at Data & Policy: “Data has rapidly emerged as an invaluable asset in societies and economies, leading to growing demands for innovative and transformative data practices. One such practice that has received considerable attention is data reuse. Data reuse is at the forefront of an emerging “third wave of open data” (Verhulst et al., 2020). Data reuse takes place when data collected for one purpose is used subsequently for an alternative purpose, typically with the justification that such secondary use has potential positive social impact (Choo et al., 2021). Since data is considered a non-rivalrous good, it can be used an infinite number of times, each use potentially bringing new insights and solutions to public problems (OECD, 2021). Data reuse can also lead to lower project costs and more sustainable outcomes for a variety of data-enabled initiatives across sectors.
A social license, or social license to operate, captures multiple stakeholders’ acceptance of standard practices and procedures (Kenton, 2021). Stakeholders, in this context, could refer to both the public and private sector, civil society, and perhaps most importantly, the public at large. Although the term originated in the context of extractive industries, it is now applied to a much broader range of businesses including technologies like artificial intelligence (Candelon et al., 2022). As data becomes more commonly compared to exploitative practices like mining, it is only apt that we apply the concept of social licenses to the data ecosystem as well (Aitken et al., 2020).
Before exploring how to achieve social licenses for data reuse, it is important to understand the many factors that affect social licenses….(More)”.
Article by Kriss Deiglmeier: “In 2011, I was co-teaching a course on Corporate Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, when our syllabus nearly went astray. A paper appeared in Harvard Business Review (HBR), titled “Creating Shared Value,” by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer. The students’ excitement was palpable: This could transform capitalism, enabling Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to bend the arc of history toward not just efficiency and profit, but toward social impact…
History shows that the promise of shared value hasn’t exactly been realized. In the past decade, most indexes of inequality, health, and climate change have gotten worse, not better. The gap in wealth equality has widened – the combined worth of the top 1% in the United States increased from 29% of all wealth in 2011 to 32.3% in 2021 and the bottom 50% increased their share from 0.4% to 2.6% of overall wealth; everyone in between saw their share of wealth decline. The federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 per hour while the US dollar has seen a cumulative price increase of 27.81%…
That said, data is by no means the only – or even primary – obstacle to achieving shared value, but the role of data is a key aspect that needs to change. In a shared value construct, data is used primarily for profit and not the societal benefit at the speed and scale required.
Unfortunately, the technology transformation has resulted in an emerging data divide. While data strategies have benefited the commercial sector, the public sector and nonprofits lag in education, tools, resources, and talent to use data in finding and scaling solutions. The result is the disparity between the expanding use of data to create commercial value, and the comparatively weak use of data to solve social and environmental challenges…
Data is part of our future and is being used by corporations to drive success, as they should. Bringing data into the shared value framework is about ensuring that other entities and organizations also have the access and tools to harness data for solving social and environmental challenges as well….
Business has the opportunity to help solve the data divide through a shared value framework by bringing talent, product and resources to bear beyond corporate boundaries to help solve our social and environmental challenges. To succeed, it’s essential to re-envision the shared value framework to ensure data is at the core to collectively solve these challenges for everyone. This will require a strong commitment to collaboration between business, government and NGOs – and it will undoubtedly require a dedication to increasing data literacy at all levels of education….(More)”.
Blog by Uma Kalkar, Marine Ragnet, and Stefaan Verhulst: “In 2020, there were an estimated 281 million migrants, accounting for 3.6% of the global population. Migrants move for a variety of reasons: some are forced to flee from unsafe situations caused by conflict or climate change, others voluntarily move in search of new opportunities. People on the move bring along a wealth of new data. This information creates new opportunities for data collection, use, and reuse across the migration process and by a variety of public, private, and humanitarian sectors. Increased access and use of data for migration need to be accompanied by increased agency and the empowerment of the data subjects — a concept called “digital self-determination” (DSD).
Although DSD is a relatively new concept, its roots stem from philosophy, psychology and human rights jurisprudence. Broadly speaking, DSD affirms that a person’s data is an extension of themselves in cyberspace, and we therefore need to consider how to provide a certain level of autonomy and agency to individuals or communities over their digital self. The first studio sought to deconstruct this concept within the context of migration and migrants. Below we list some of the main takeaways from the studio discussions.
Takeaway #1: DSD is in essence about the power asymmetries between migrants, states, and relevant organizations. Specifically, conversations around DSD centered around “power” and “control” — there is an asymmetry between the migrant and the state or organization they interact with to move within and across borders. These imbalances center around agency (a lack of autonomy over data collection, data consciousness, and data use); choice (in who, how, and where data are used, a lack of transparency over these decisions, and power and control issues faced when seeking to access national or social rights); and participation (who gets to formulate questions and access the data?).
Studio participants brought up how structural requirements force migrants to be open about their data; noted the opacity around how data is sourced from migrants; and raised concerns about agency, data literacy, and advocacy across the migrant process.
The various hierarchies of power, and how it relates to DSD for migrants, highlighted the discrepancies in power between migrants, the state, private companies, and even NGOs.
Information architecture and information asymmetries are some of the central aspects to consider to achieve DSD, suggesting that DSD may relate directly to who is telling the story during a crisis and who has the power to add insights to the narratives being developed. A responsible DSD framework will hinge on the voices of migrants.
The right to “data consciousness” was also raised to ensure that vulnerable individuals and groups are aware of when, where, and how data are collected, processed, and stored. Nurturing this awareness helps breed agency around personal data.
Representation of power asymmetries faced by migrants in achieving their DSD.
Takeaway #2: There is a need to understand the dual meaning of DSD.
Takeaway #3: There is a need to engage migrants in needs and expectations.…
Takeaway #4: A taxonomy of DSD for the various migration-related steps can support creating effective tools to protect migrants along their journey...
Takeaway #5: DSD can be achieved through policy, technology, and process innovations.…
Takeaway #6: DSD opportunities need to be determined across the data life cycle….(More)”.
