Journal of responsible technology最新文献

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.

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.

Social sciences are investigating the societal implications of using blockchains for social collaborative economies and participatory practices. This article contributes by advancing an original approach to blockchain-based applications defined as Civic Blockchain. It is implemented with a wallet app currently experimented upon in local communities.

Our approach is informed by an analysis of the critical literature on ethical and design dilemmas concerning blockchain for social impact. The conceptual framework revolves around three principles (Internet of Values 2.0, disintermediation of services, and local adaptation), that are reflected in our technical choices. The approach makes blockchains accessible to local community members, leveraging some of their core affordances and advancing new interpretations with a focus on technical and economic accessibility. Blockchain technology can support new socio-economic practices on a local level when intentional actions are undertaken by developers and users to address the societal challenges.

Responsible Innovation (RI) aims to enable research and innovation to take a more systematic approach to anticipating potential risks and consequences of planned research/innovative outputs. The Anticipation, Reflection, Engagement and Action (AREA) framework provides a flexible mechanism for organisations and researchers to align research and innovation with societal values, needs and challenges. However, its actual application may prove challenging for practitioners. In this paper, we describe how the AREA framework has been embedded in an interdisciplinary research project in the UK over the period of 2019–2021 through dedicated monthly RI workshops. To gain insights from this practice, we have collected qualitative data from discussions throughout the project and performed a systematic analysis of the logging practice itself. We discuss benefits and challenges associated with embedding an RI framework within an interdisciplinary research team, and present recommendations for future adoption of the AREA framework in a cross-disciplinary research setting.

This paper examines the notion of capability development through the lens of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). It describes how RRI capabilities can be promoted and developed through capacity-building activities by drawing on a reflection of the experiences of some members of the Ethics and Society team of the EU-funded Human Brain Project (HBP) who have contributed to the development of an extensive RRI capacity building programme for HBP researchers, EBRAINS research infrastructure developers and users, as well as interested external audiences. It also highlights some of the outcomes of the RRI capacity-building exercise and the challenge of assessing the impact of such activities.

The UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations as a “universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity.”  These goals prove to have a strong appeal to managers in both public and private sectors. Despite the popularity of the goals, little is known about the consequences (intended and unintended, desired and undesired) of organisations adopting SDGs in their management practices. Therefore, our research question is: “What is the potential role of SDGs as an accountability mechanism?”  The following article will study how organisations responsible for technological infrastructures in the Netherlands use the SDGs as an accountability mechanism. To do this, the authors will first provide an overview of the SDGs and how we conceptualize accountability. We will then present our case study methodology before looking at a single case study based on interviews with employees from three organizations running infrastructure in the Netherlands. Based on this case study, we will provide a broader analysis of the key tensions that are becoming apparent when using the SDGs as an accountability mechanism. In conclusion, we will argue that the SDGs may provide a valuable tool to make organizations more accountable to societal needs, however further shifts are needed in the way the accountability mechanisms are designed in order to ensure meaningful accountability.