Abstract Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.
more »
« less
In Whose Best Interest?: Exploring the Real, Potential, and Imagined Ethical Concerns in Privacy-Focused Agenda
Through a series of ACM SIGCHI workshops, we have built a research community of individuals dedicated to networked privacy--from identifying the key challenges to designing privacy solutions and setting a privacy-focused agenda for the future. In this workshop, we take an intentional pause to unpack the potential ethical questions and concerns this agenda might raise. Rather than strictly focusing on privacy as a state that is always desired--where more privacy is viewed unequivocally as "better"--we consider situations where privacy may not be optimal for researchers, end users, or society. We discuss the current research landscape, including the recent updates to the ACM's Code of Ethics, and how researchers and designers can make more informed decisions regarding ethics, privacy, and other competing values in privacy-related research and designs. Our workshop includes group discussions, breakout activities, and a panel of experts with diverse insights discussing topics related to privacy and ethics.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1704369
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10073270
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 377 to 382
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
While many efforts have begun to increase the diversity of learners in computing and engineering fields, more inclusive approaches are needed to support learners with intersectional identities across gender, race, ethnicity, and ability. A group of 15 experts across a range of computing, engineering, and data-based disciplines joined experts from education and the social sciences to build a plan for intersectional policy, practices, and research in broadening participation in computing and engineering (BPC/BPE) efforts that is inclusive of gender identity. This paper presents findings from the workshop including near and long term agenda items for intersectional research about the inclusion of gender identity in the computing and engineering education research communities; recommendations for advancing collective understanding of and ability to implement principles of intersectionality in future work and; and highlights from existing work, researchers, and thought leaders on the inclusion of gender identity in BPC/BPE initiatives that inform this research agenda. In this report we’ll discuss the origin of the workshop idea, the experience of pulling together the workshop and lessons learned around implementing it, and finally we’ll report about the outputs and emerging outcomes of the workshop experience. This workshop report will contribute to fostering a space where gender expansive work is valued and valuable for those doing, receiving, and being represented by this work. It will also offer readers the opportunity to conceptualize how to expand and refine the inclusion of gender identity as part of their current and future BPC/BPE initiatives. We end with an explicit call for more gender expansive and gender liberationist work be undertaken through the auspices of ASEE.more » « less
-
Fostering public AI literacy has been a growing area of interest at CHI for several years, and a substantial community is forming around issues such as teaching children how to build and program AI systems, designing learning experiences to broaden public understanding of AI, developing explainable AI systems, understanding how novices make sense of AI, and exploring the relationship between public policy, ethics, and AI literacy. Previous workshops related to AI literacy have been held at other conferences (e.g., SIGCSE, AAAI) that have been mostly focused on bringing together researchers and educators interested in AI education in K-12 classroom environments, an important subfield of this area. Our workshop seeks to cast a wider net that encompasses both HCI research related to introducing AI in K-12 education and also HCI research that is concerned with issues of AI literacy more broadly, including adult education, interactions with AI in the workplace, understanding how users make sense of and learn about AI systems, research on developing explainable AI (XAI) for non-expert users, and public policy issues related to AI literacy.more » « less
-
Artificial intelligence (AI) underpins virtually every experience that we have—from search and social media to generative AI and immersive social virtual reality (SVR). For Generation Z, there is no before AI. As adults, we must humble ourselves to the notion that AI is shaping youths’ world in ways that we don’t understand and we need to listen to them about their lived experiences. We invite researchers from academia and industry to participate in a workshop with youth activists to set the agenda for research into how AI-driven emerging technologies affect youth and how to address these challenges. This reflective workshop will amplify youth voices and empower youth and researchers to set an agenda. As part of the workshop, youth activists will participate in a panel and steer the conversation around the agenda for future research. All will participate in group research agenda setting activities to reflect on their experiences with AI technologies and consider ways to tackle these challenges.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The growing prevalence of data-rich networked information technologies—such as social media platforms, smartphones, wearable devices, and the internet of things —brings an increase in the flow of rich, deep, and often identifiable personal information available for researchers. More than just “big data,” these datasets reflect people’s lives and activities, bridge multiple dimensions of a person’s life, and are often collected, aggregated, exchanged, and mined without them knowing. We call this data “pervasive data,” and the increased scale, scope, speed, and depth of pervasive data available to researchers require that we confront the ethical frameworks that guide such research activities. Multiple stakeholders are embroiled in the challenges of research ethics in pervasive data research: researchers struggle with questions of privacy and consent, user communities may not even be aware of the widespread harvesting of their data for scientific study, platforms are increasingly restricting researcher’s access to data over fears of privacy and security, and ethical review boards face increasing difficulties in properly considering the complexities of research protocols relying on user data collected online. The results presented in this paper expand our understanding of how ethical review board members think about pervasive data research. It provides insights into how IRB professionals make decisions about the use of pervasive data in cases not obviously covered by traditional research ethics guidelines, and points to challenges for IRBs when reviewing research protocols relying on pervasive data.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3022660
