research paper / thesis / dissertation

Smart Contracts and Their Identity Crisis

Curated on February 7, 2019February 7, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alvaro Gonzalez Rivas, Mariya Tsyganova and Eliza Mik: “Many expect Smart Contracts (SC’s) to disrupt the way contracts are done implying that SC have the potential to affect all commercial relationships. SC’s are automatization tools; therefore, proponents claim that SC’s can reduce transaction costs through disintermediation and risk reduction.

This is an over-simplification of the role of relationships, contract law, and risk. We believe there is a gap in the understanding of the capabilities of SC’s. With that in mind we seek to define an amorphous term and clarify the capabilities of SC’s, intending to facilitate future SC research. We’ve examined the legal, technical, and IS views from an academic and practitioner’s perspective. We conclude that SC’s have taken many forms, becoming a suitcase word for any sort of code stored on a blockchain, including the embodiment of contractual terms; and that the immutable nature of SC’s is a barrier to their adoption in uncertain and multi-contextual environments….(More)”.

Using Personal Informatics Data in Collaboration among People with Different Expertise

Curated on February 6, 2019February 6, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Dissertation by Chia-Fang Chung: “Many people collect and analyze data about themselves to improve their health and wellbeing. With the prevalence of smartphones and wearable sensors, people are able to collect detailed and complex data about their everyday behaviors, such as diet, exercise, and sleep. This everyday behavioral data can support individual health goals, help manage health conditions, and complement traditional medical examinations conducted in clinical visits. However, people often need support to interpret this self-tracked data. For example, many people share their data with health experts, hoping to use this data to support more personalized diagnosis and recommendations as well as to receive emotional support. However, when attempting to use this data in collaborations, people and their health experts often struggle to make sense of the data. My dissertation examines how to support collaborations between individuals and health experts using personal informatics data.

My research builds an empirical understanding of individual and collaboration goals around using personal informatics data, current practices of using this data to support collaboration, and challenges and expectations for integrating the use of this data into clinical workflows. These understandings help designers and researchers advance the design of personal informatics systems as well as the theoretical understandings of patient-provider collaboration.

Based on my formative work, I propose design and theoretical considerations regarding interactions between individuals and health experts mediated by personal informatics data. System designers and personal informatics researchers need to consider collaborations occurred throughout the personal tracking process. Patient-provider collaboration might influence individual decisions to track and to review, and systems supporting this collaboration need to consider individual and collaborative goals as well as support communication around these goals. Designers and researchers should also attend to individual privacy needs when personal informatics data is shared and used across different healthcare contexts. With these design guidelines in mind, I design and develop Foodprint, a photo-based food diary and visualization system. I also conduct field evaluations to understand the use of lightweight data collection and integration to support collaboration around personal informatics data. Findings from these field deployments indicate that photo-based visualizations allow both participants and health experts to easily understand eating patterns relevant to individual health goals. Participants and health experts can then focus on individual health goals and questions, exchange knowledge to support individualized diagnoses and recommendations, and develop actionable and feasible plans to accommodate individual routines….(More)”.

Nudging does not necessarily improve decisions

Curated on February 2, 2019February 7, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

University of Zurich: “Nudging is a well-known and popular concept in behavioral economics. It refers to non-coercive interventions that influence the choices people make by changing the way a situation is presented. A well-known example of this is placing the salad bar near the cafeteria entrance to promote a healthy diet. It has been shown that simple change has an effect on the food people choose to eat for lunch. However, is a light salad really the best option from the employee’s perspective, or is it their employer who will benefit from staff who perform better in the afternoon? And, is improving the decisions we make really that simple?

Measuring the quality of a decision

Whether a nudge ultimately results in a person making decisions that are better suited to their needs is an important factor in assessing the effectiveness of nudges. This is the starting point of the research work of Nick Netzer and Jean-Michel Benkert from the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich. How do you measure whether a nudge improves a decision in the eyes of the person being nudged? “We can’t determine whether a nudge improves the choices a person makes until we understand how they reach their decisions,” says Nick Netzer, putting the hype surrounding nudging into perspective. “Depending on which behavioral model we take as a starting point, it is possible to measure the effectiveness of nudges — or not.”

Traditional economics assumes that a person’s preferences can be inferred from their decisions and behavior. According to the rational behavior model, a person’s decision to have a salad or a steak for lunch is based on which meal meets their needs. When it comes to assessing nudges, however, this model is problematic, since nudging manipulates precisely the behavior that is supposed to shed light on a person’s preferences. The researchers therefore looked to alternative behavioral models to determine the assumptions under which a nudge can be assessed in a meaningful way…(More)”.

MIT Sloan study finds crowdsourcing an effective tool to fight spread of fake news

Curated on January 31, 2019January 31, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

MIT Sloan Press Release: “Fake news isn’t a new problem, but it’s becoming a greater concern because of social media, where it is easily created and rapidly distributed. A recent study by MIT Sloan School of Management Prof. David Rand and Prof. Gordon Pennycook of the University of Regina finds there is a possible solution: crowdsourcing. As their research shows that laypeople trust reputable news outlets more than outlets that create misinformation, social media platforms could use trust ratings to inform how they promote content.

(PRNewsfoto/MIT Sloan School of Management)

“There has been a lot of research examining fake news and how it spreads, but this study is among the first to suggest a potential long-term solution, which is cause for measured optimism. If we can decrease the amount of misinformation spreading on social media, we can increase agreement on basic facts across political parties, which will hopefully lead to less political polarization and a greater ability to compromise on how to run the country,” says Rand. “It may also make it harder for individuals to win elections based on false claims.”

He notes that current solutions for fighting misinformation deployed by social media companies haven’t been that effective. For example, partnering with fact-checkers isn’t scalable because they can’t keep up with the rapid creation of false stories. Further, putting warnings on content found to be false can be counterproductive, because it makes misleading stories that didn’t get checked seem more accurate – the “implied truth” effect.

“Our study is good news because we find a scalable solution to this problem, based on the surprisingly good judgment of everyday Americans. Things may not be as hopeless as most coverage of fake news makes you think,” says Rand.

In their study, Rand and Pennycook examined whether crowdsourcing could work as an effective tool in fighting the spread of misinformation. They asked laypeople to rate familiarity with and trust in news sources across three categories: mainstream media outlets, hyper-partisan websites, and websites that produce blatantly false content (“fake news”). The pool of people surveyed was nationally representative across age, gender, ethnicity, and political affiliations. They also asked professional fact-checkers the same questions to compare responses.

They found that laypeople trust reputable news outlets more than those that create misinformation and that the trust ratings of the laypeople surveyed closely matched the trust ratings of professional fact-checkers. “Our results show that laypeople are much better than many would have expected at knowing which outlets to trust,” says Rand. “Although there were clear partisan differences, with Republicans distrusting all mainstream outlets (except for Fox News) relative to Democrats, there was a remarkable consensus regarding non-mainstream outlets being untrustworthy.”…(More)”.

The Internet of Humans (IoH): Human Rights and Co-Governance to Achieve Tech Justice in the City

Curated on January 30, 2019January 30, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Christian Iaione, Elena de Nictolis and Anna Berti Suman: “Internet of Things, Internet of Everything and Internet of People are concepts suggesting that objects, devices and people will be increasingly interconnected through digital infrastructure that will generate a growing gathering of data. Parallel to this is the celebration of the smart city and sharing city as urban policy visions that by relying heavily on new technologies bear the promise of a efficient and thriving cities. Law and policy scholarship has either focused on questions related to privacy, discrimination, security or issues related to the production and use of big data, digital public services. Little or no attention in the literature has been paid to the disruptive impact of technological development on urban governance and city inhabitants’ rights of equal access, participation, management and even ownership, in order to understand whether and how technology can also enhance the protection of human rights and social justice in the city.

This article advances the proposal of complementing the technological and digital infrastructure with a legal and institutional infrastructure, the Internet of Humans, by construing and injecting in the legal and policy framework of the city the principle of Tech Justice. Building on the literature review on and from the analysis of selected case studies this article stresses the dichotomy existing between the market-based and the society-based applications of technology, the first likely to increase the digital divide and the challenges to human rights in the city, the latter bearing the promise to promote equal access to technology in the city. The main argument advanced by this paper is indeed that Tech Justice is an empirical dimension that can steer the developments of smart city and sharing city policies toward a more just and democratic city….(More)”.

Is Gamification Making Cities Smarter?

Curated on January 30, 2019January 30, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Gianluca Sgueo in Ius Publicum Network Review: Streets embedded with sensors to manage traffic congestion, public spaces monitored by high-tech command centres to detect suspicious activities, real-time and publicly accessible data on energy, transportation and waste management – in academia, there is still no generally agreed definition of ‘smart cities’. But in the collective imagination, the connotations are clear: smart cities are seen as efficient machines governed by algorithms. For decades, the combination of technology and data has been a key feature of smart urban management. Under this scheme, what branded a city as smart was the efficiency of (digital) public services. Over time, concerns have grown over this privatization of public services. Who owns the data processed by private companies? Who guarantees that data are treated ethically? How inclusive are the public services provided by increasingly privatised smart cities?

In response to such criticism, urban management has progressively shifted the focus from the efficiency of public services to citizens’ concerns. This new approach puts inclusiveness at the centre of public services design. Citizens are actively engaged in all phases of urban management, from planning to service provision. However, the quest for inclusive urban management is confronted by four challenges. The first is dimensional, the second regulatory, the third financial, and the fourth relational.

The moment we combine these four challenges together, uncertainty arises: can a smart city be inclusive at the same time? It goes beyond the scope of this article to thoroughly delve into this question. My aim is to contribute to reflections on where the quest for inclusiveness is leading smart urban management. To this end, this article focuses on one specific form of innovative urban management: a combination of technology and fun design described as ‘gamification’.

The article reviews the use of gamification at the municipal level. After describing seven case studies of gamified urban governance, it analyses three shared traits of these initiatives, namely: the structure, the design, and the purposes. It then discusses the (potential) benefits and (actual) drawbacks of gamification in urban environments. The article concludes by assessing the contribution that gamification is making to the evolution of smart cities. It is argued that gamification offers a meaningful solution to more inclusive urban decision-making. But it is also warned about three common misconceptions in discourses on the future of smart cities. The first is the myth of inclusive technology; the second consists of the illusion of the democratic potential of games; finally, the third points at the downsides of regulatory experimentalism….(More)”.

What Sustains Individuals’ Participation in Crowdsourcing Contests?

Curated on January 29, 2019January 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Xuan Wang et al: Crowdsourcing contests have become widely adopted for idea generation and problem-solving in various companies in different industries. The success of crowdsourcing depends on the sustained participation and quality-submissions of the individuals. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence individuals’ continued participation in these contests. We address this issue, by conducting an empirical study using data from an online crowdsourcing contest platform, Kaggle, which delivers data science and machine learning solutions and models to its clients.

The findings show that the community activities and team activities do not contribute to motivating the continued participation, but tenure does significantly affect the continued participation. We also found statistically significant effects of amount of prize, number of competitions, previous team performance, and competition duration on individuals sustained participation in crowdsourcing contests. This research contributes to the literature by identifying the factors influencing individuals’ sustained participation in crowdsourcing contests…(More)”.

Not so gameful: A critical review of gamification in mobile energy applications

Curated on January 29, 2019January 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ariane L.Beck et al in Energy Research & Social Sciences: “In order to help mitigate climate change and reduce the health-related consequences of air pollution, consumers need to be empowered to make better and more effective decisions regarding energy use. Utilities, government, and commercial entities offer numerous programs and consumer products to help individuals set or reach goals related to energy use.

Many of these interventions and products have related apps that use gamification in some capacity in order to improve the user experience, offer motivation, and encourage behavior change. We identified 57 apps from nearly 2400 screened apps that both target direct energy use and employ at least one element of gamification.

We evaluated these apps with specific focus on gamification components, game elements, and behavioral constructs. Our analysis shows that the average energy related app heavily underutilizes search engine optimization, gamification components, and game design elements, as well as the behavioral constructs known to impact energy-related decision-making and behavior. Our findings offer several insights for the design of more effective energy apps….(More)”.

Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring SDGs

Curated on January 29, 2019June 30, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Special Issue of Global Policy: “The papers in this special issue investigate the politics that shaped the SDGs, the setting of the goals, the selection of the measurement methods. The SDGs ushered in a new era of ‘governance by indicators’ in global development. Goal setting and the use of numeric performance indicators have now become the method for negotiating a consensus vision of development and priority objectives. The choice of indicators is seemingly a technical issue, but measurement methods interprets and reinterprets norms, carry value judgements, theoretical assumptions, and implicit political agendas. As social scientists have long pointed out, reliance on indicators can distort social norms, frame hegemonic discourses, and reinforce power hierarchies.

The case studies in this collection show the open multi-stakeholder negotiations helped craft more transformative and ambitious goals. But across many goals, there was slippage in ambition when targets and indicators were selected. The papers also highlight how the increasing role of big data and other non-traditional sources of data is altering data production, dissemination and use, and fundamentally altering the epistemology of information and knowledge. This raises questions about ‘data for whom and for what’ – fundamental issues concerning the power of data to shape knowledge, the democratic governance of SDG indicators and of knowledge for development overall.

“Giving something back”: A systematic review and ethical enquiry into public views on the use of patient data for research in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

Curated on January 24, 2019January 24, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jessica Stockdale, Jackie Cassell and Elizabeth Ford: “The use of patients’ medical data for secondary purposes such as health research, audit, and service planning is well established in the UK, and technological innovation in analytical methods for new discoveries using these data resources is developing quickly. Data scientists have developed, and are improving, many ways to extract and process information in medical records. This continues to lead to an exciting range of health related discoveries, improving population health and saving lives. Nevertheless, as the development of analytic technologies accelerates, the decision-making and governance environment as well as public views and understanding about this work, has been lagging behind¹.

Public opinion and data use

A range of small studies canvassing patient views, mainly in the USA, have found an overall positive orientation to the use of patient data for societal benefit^2–7. However, recent case studies, like NHS England’s ill-fated Care.data scheme, indicate that certain schemes for secondary data use can prove unpopular in the UK. Launched in 2013, Care.data aimed to extract and upload the whole population’s general practice patient records to a central database for prevalence studies and service planning⁸. Despite the stated intention of Care.data to “make major advances in quality and patient safety”⁸, this programme was met with a widely reported public outcry leading to its suspension and eventual closure in 2016. Several factors may have been involved in this failure, from the poor public communication about the project, lack of social licence⁹, or as pressure group MedConfidential suggests, dislike of selling data to profit-making companies¹⁰. However, beyond these specific explanations for the project’s failure, what ignited public controversy was a concern with the impact that its aim to collect and share data on a large scale might have on patient privacy. The case of Care.data indicates a reluctance on behalf of the public to share their patient data, and it is still not wholly clear whether the public are willing to accept future attempts at extracting and linking large datasets of medical information. The picture of mixed opinion makes taking an evidence-based position, drawing on social consensus, difficult for legislators, regulators, and data custodians who may respond to personal or media generated perceptions of public views. However, despite differing results of studies canvassing public views, we hypothesise that there may be underlying ethical principles that could be extracted from the literature on public views, which may provide guidance to policy-makers for future data-sharing….(More)”.