Journal of responsible technology最新文献

Recent advancements in machine learning have spurred an increased integration of AI in critical sectors such as healthcare and criminal justice. The ethical and legal concerns surrounding fully autonomous AI highlight the importance of combining human oversight with AI to elevate decision-making quality. However, trust calibration errors in human-AI collaboration, encompassing instances of over-trust or under-trust in AI recommendations, pose challenges to overall performance. Addressing trust calibration in the design process is essential, and eXplainable AI (XAI) emerges as a valuable tool by providing transparent AI explanations. This paper introduces Calibrated-XAI (C-XAI), a participatory design framework specifically crafted to tackle both technical and human factors in the creation of XAI interfaces geared towards trust calibration in Human-AI collaboration. The primary objective of the C-XAI framework is to assist designers of XAI interfaces in minimising trust calibration errors at the design level. This is achieved through the adoption of a participatory design approach, which includes providing templates, guidance, and involving diverse stakeholders in the design process. The efficacy of C-XAI is evaluated through a two-stage evaluation study, demonstrating its potential to aid designers in constructing user interfaces with trust calibration in mind. Through this work, we aspire to offer systematic guidance to practitioners, fostering a responsible approach to eXplainable AI at the user interface level.

Digital humanism emerges from serious concerns about the way in which digitisation develops, its impact on society and on humans. While its motivation is clear and broadly accepted, it is still an emerging field that does not yet have a universally accepted definition. Also, it is not always clear how to differentiate digital humanism from other similar endeavours. In this article, we critically investigate the notion of digital humanism and present its main principles as shared by its key proponents. These principles include the quest for human dignity and the ideal of a better society based on core values of the Enlightenment.

The paper concludes that digital humanism is to be treated as a technical endeavour to shape digital technologies and use them for digital innovation, a political endeavour investigating power shifts triggered by digital technology, and, at the same time, as a philosophical endeavour including the quest to delineate its scope and to draw boundaries for the digital.

Methodologically, digital humanism is an interdisciplinary effort to debate a broad range of digitisation shortfalls in their totality, from privacy infringements to power shifts, from human alienation to disownment. While it overlaps with a range of established fields and other movements, digital humanism reflects a new academic, engineering, and societal awareness of the challenges of digital technologies.

In the field of brain monitoring, the advancement of more user-friendly wearable and non-invasive devices is introducing new opportunities for application outside the lab and clinical use. Despite the growing importance of responsible innovation, there remains a knowledge gap in addressing the possible impacts of wearable non-invasive brain monitoring technology on mental health and well-being. Addressing this, our main aim was to study the use of speculative design scenarios as a method to describe potential value dilemmas associated with this new technology. Through a qualitative study, we invited participants to engage in discussions regarding three variations of wearable non-invasive brain monitoring technology presented in speculative video scenarios. The study's findings describe how the discussions contribute towards promoting heuristics that can help foster more responsible innovation by identifying norms and value dilemmas through inclusive speculative design practices. This qualitative case study contributes to the literature on responsible innovation by demonstrating how responsible innovation frameworks can benefit from incorporating anticipatory speculative design methods aimed at early identification of potential value dilemmas.

The term digital humanism is gaining traction in academia, but what does it mean? This brief discussion paper offers a conceptual analysis and discussion of the term and vision, thereby arguing for a more critical, posthumanist, and political version of digital humanism.

There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.

In this editorial, we chart a path for research on responsible digital transformation (DT). We draw on responsible innovation to provide a framework that can inform the research agenda of the emerging literature of responsible DT. First, we outline what we refer to as DT and how the existing debate overlooks key issues for making DT responsible. Second, we draw on the concept of responsible innovation to examine the meaning of responsibility in the context of innovation and translate it to DT. This leads us to understand responsible DT as two-dimensional including a process and an outcome dimension. Accordingly, we pose two questions: (1) when we can consider a DT process responsible (i.e., responsibility in DT), and (2) when we can consider DT outcomes responsible (i.e., the responsibility of DT). Offering suggestions on how we can approach studying these questions, we chart a path for responsible DT research. This path presents a new frontier within the DT discourse calling to our attention how DT—if we make responsibility of/in DT explicit—can be the solution rather than the problem.

The European Union strives to align research and innovation to the values, needs and expectations of society to address societal challenges. To support this alignment the European Union endeavours to make Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) part of the governmental policies on science and technology of its member states. If the European Union is effective in this endeavour, then principles that are common in the field of RRI should play a significant role in the perspectives that belong to the member states’ policy officers for research and innovation. In this paper we empirically check this by conducting a Q-method study on Dutch policy officers working on quantum technology-related policies. In this study we found four perspectives on innovation among these policy officers. In all these perspectives some of the RRI principles are present in merely a weak manner, or even absent, casting substantial doubts on whether RRI has become part of the EU member state governmental policies on science and technology.

Societal challenges tend to be characterized by their multi-scalarity as problems emerge and co-evolve on multiple scales. Resolving these challenges requires innovators to navigate often conflicting considerations between multiple scales when dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and contestation. Innovators need to ground resolutions in local values and worldviews while simultaneously fitting these into global efforts to help drive systemic responses. Nevertheless, studies on Responsible Innovation commonly focus exclusively on a local or global scale. In this perspective paper, we explore rationales for these two prevalent but opposing approaches, and provide tentative insights into how multi-scalarity could be navigated by uniting scales through a hybrid approach. The paper proceeds by opening up research on multi-scalarity, and the geographical and relational aspects of Responsible Innovation in a broader sense.

Data subject rights provide data controllers with obligations that can help with transparency, giving data subjects some control over their personal data. To date, a growing number of researchers have used these data subject rights as a methodology for data collection in research studies. No one, however, has gathered and analysed different academic research studies that use data subject rights as a methodology for data collection. To this end, we conducted a systematic literature review that searched, compiled, and analysed 32 academic studies that use data subject rights as a data collection method. We find that the right of access is the most commonly-used data subject right by researchers, most studies are interested in measuring data subject rights compliance, and that a variety of difficulties exist in conducting research studies with data subject rights. We conclude that researchers should explore other data subject rights for alternative purposes, ease the process of exercising data subject rights, and improve the scalability of these studies.

This review on the book 'Digital Lethargy: Dispatches from an Age of Disconnection' by Tung-Hui Hu explores Hu's conceptualisation of digital lethargy through a spiritual philosophical lens. Hu, who navigates this technological phenomenon of digital lethargy using various forms of performance art, challenges the idea that digital technologies support individuation when users are, in fact, tired of having to individuate. The review examines how Hu offers an alternative route to despair and destruction to those unfairly shouldering the burden of a biased digital age; a route, that perhaps, highlights the power held in the moments of idleness, of timepass, of lethargy, of endurance that exist almost imperceptibly between the forced lively clicks, swipes and movements of the digital world.