Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Ecosystems for Responsible AI

Expectations on Sociotechnical Systems, Agendas, and Networks in EU Documents

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society (I3E 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12896))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Governing artificial intelligence (AI) requires multi-actor cooperation, but what form could this cooperation take? In recent years, the European Union (EU) has made significant efforts to become a key player in establishing responsible AI. In its strategy documents on AI, the EU has formulated expectations and visions concerning ecosystems for responsible AI. This paper analyzes expectations on potential responsible AI ecosystems in five key EU documents on AI. To analyze these documents, we draw on the sociology of expectations and synthesize a framework comprising cognitive and normative expectations on sociotechnical systems, agendas and networks. We found that the EU documents on responsible AI feature four interconnected themes, which occupy different positions in our framework: 1) trust as the foundation of responsible AI (cognitive–sociotechnical systems), 2) ethics and competitiveness as complementary (normative–sociotechnical systems), 3) European value-based approach (normative–agendas), and 4) Europe as global leader in responsible AI (normative–networks). Our framework thus provides a mapping tool for researchers and practitioners to navigate expectations in early ecosystem development and help decide what to do in response to articulated expectations. The analysis also suggests that expectations on emerging responsible AI ecosystems have a layered structure, where network building relies on expectations about sociotechnical systems and agendas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/eu-member-states-sign-cooperate-artificialintelligence.

References

  1. European Commission: WHITE PAPER On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dignum, V.: Responsibility and artificial intelligence. In: Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., Das, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, pp. 213–231. Oxford University Press (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.12.

  3. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., Vayena, E.: The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 389–399 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yeung, K., Howes, A., Pogrebna, G.: AI Governance by Human Rights-Centered Design, Deliberation, and Oversight: an End to Ethics Washing. In: Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., Das, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, pp. 75–106. Oxford University Press (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.5.

  5. Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C., Gawer, A.: Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg. Manag. J. 39, 2255–2276 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaminski, M.E.: Binary governance: lessons from the GDPR’s approach to algorithmic accountability. Southern California Law Rev. 92, 1529–1616 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ananny, M., Crawford, K.: Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc. 20, 973–989 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Osoba, O.A., Boudreaux, B., Yeung, D.: Steps towards value-aligned systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 332–336. ACM, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375872

  9. Morley, J., Elhalal, A., Garcia, F., Kinsey, L., Mokander, J., Floridi, L.: Ethics as a Service: A Pragmatic Operationalisation of AI Ethics. Social Science Research Network, Rochester (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gasser, U., Almeida, V.A.F.: A layered model for AI governance. IEEE Internet Comput. 21, 58–62 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2017.4180835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. European Commission: Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) | Shaping Europe’s digital future. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-down-harmonised-rules-artificial-intelligence-artificial-intelligence. Accessed 04 May 2021

  12. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (2019). https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60419

  13. Renda, A.: Europe: toward a policy framework for trustworthy AI. In: Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., Das, S. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, pp. 649–666. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.41

  14. Butcher, J., Beridze, I.: What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally? RUSI J. 164, 88–96 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2019.1694260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mäntymäki, M., Salmela, H.: In search for the core of the business ecosystem concept: a conceptual comparison of business ecosystem, industry, cluster, and inter organizational network. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Software Ecosystems, CEUR-WS, pp. 103–113 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hyrynsalmi, S., Mäntymäki, M.: Is ecosystem health a useful metaphor? towards a research agenda for ecosystem health research. In: Al-Sharhan, S.A., et al. (eds.) I3E 2018. LNCS, vol. 11195, pp. 141–149. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02131-3_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P.: Network management in the era of ecosystems: systematic review and management framework. Ind. Mark. Manage. 67, 23–36 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., Matsumoto, Y.: A review of the ecosystem concept – Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 136, 49–58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Adner, R.: Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J. Manag. 43, 39–58 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Quan, X.I., Sanderson, J.: Understanding the artificial intelligence business ecosystem. IEEE Eng. Manage. Rev. 46, 22–25 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2018.2882430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Orr, W., Davis, J.L.: Attributions of ethical responsibility by artificial intelligence practitioners. Inf. Commun. Soc. 23, 719–735 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1713842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Beckert, J.: Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., Lente, H.V.: The Sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 18, 285–298 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mische, A.: Measuring futures in action: projective grammars in the Rio + 20 debates. Theory Soc. 43(3–4), 437–464 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-014-9226-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Linders, A.: Documents, texts, and archives in constructionist research. In: Holstein, J.A., Gubrium, J.F. (eds.) Handbook of Constructionist Research, pp. 467–490. Guilford Press, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prior, L.: Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology 42, 821–836 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van Merkerk, R.O., Robinson, D.K.R.: Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: expectations, agendas and networks in Lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 18, 411–428 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmidt, V.A.: Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 303–326 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Berkhout, F.: Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 18, 299–311 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. van Lente, H.: Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 24, 769–782 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.715478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Floridi, L.: On human dignity as a foundation for the right to privacy. Philos. Technol. 29(4), 307–312 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0220-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Graneheim, U.H., Lundman, B.: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24, 105–112 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. European Commission: Artificial Intelligence for Europe. (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tavory, I., Timmermans, S.: Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Ramos, C., Ford, I.D.: Network pictures as a research device: developing a tool to capture actors’ perceptions in organizational networks. Ind. Mark. Manage. 40, 447–464 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Smuha, N.A.: From a ‘race to AI’ to a ‘race to AI regulation’: regulatory competition for artificial intelligence. Law Innov. Technol. 13, 57–84 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. European Commission: Building Trust in Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  38. European Commission: Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Floridi, L.: Establishing the rules for building trustworthy AI. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 261–262 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0055-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Veale, M.: A critical take on the policy recommendations of the EU high-level expert group on artificial intelligence. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 1–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2019.65

  41. Burton Swanson, E., Ramiller, N.C.: The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organ. Sci. 8, 458–474 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jasanoff, S.: Future imperfect: science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In: Jasanoff, S., Kim, S.-H. (eds.) Dreamscapes of Modernity, pp. 1–33. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Manners, I.: Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? JCMS J. Common Market Stud. 40, 235–258 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00353.

  44. Jabłonowska, A., Kuziemski, M., Nowak, A.M., Micklitz, H.-W., Palka, P., Sartor, G.: Consumer law and artificial intelligence: challenges to the EU consumer law and policy stemming from the business’ use of artificial intelligence : final report of the ARTSY project (2018)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Turku, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Matti Minkkinen, Markus Philipp Zimmer & Matti Mäntymäki

Authors
  1. Matti Minkkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Philipp Zimmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matti Mäntymäki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matti Minkkinen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Denis Dennehy

  2. National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Anastasia Griva

  3. Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

    Nancy Pouloudi

  4. Swansea University, Swansea, UK

    Yogesh K. Dwivedi

  5. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Ilias Pappas

  6. University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Matti Mäntymäki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Minkkinen, M., Zimmer, M.P., Mäntymäki, M. (2021). Towards Ecosystems for Responsible AI. In: Dennehy, D., Griva, A., Pouloudi, N., Dwivedi, Y.K., Pappas, I., Mäntymäki, M. (eds) Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society. I3E 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12896. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85446-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85447-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation