Track leader: Alexander Myklebust (NTNU):

Mission oriented innovation policies have in recent years been implemented, in an effort to utilize top-down and bottom-up approaches to steer the directionality of social change and facilitate a just and sustainable transformation. 

Missions policies have replaced RRI in the current EU framework programme for research and innovation. Considering this, scholars have discussed the future of RRI and suggested ways that its practices can be employed in different contexts. Still, it is an open question how lessons and insights from RRI can inform critical engagement with mission-oriented innovation.  

This track welcomes contributions that engage with the future of RRI and CSR in the era of mission-oriented innovation policies. Contributions can for instance discuss theoretical concepts such as “transformation” or “directionality; whether the four dimensions of RRI can be employed in a missions context; and how RRI can inform critical engagement with mission-oriented innovation. 
 

Track leaders: Anne Blanchard (UiB) and Giovanni De Grandis (NTNU):

We are inviting submissions that address one of the following themes: 

1. The experience of PhD candidates and young researchers working on projects whose agenda is broader than advancing disciplinary knowledge. We are interested in a broad range of commitments, ranging from RRI and Open Science to Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability. Presentations should address challenges and tensions met in their research, including (but not limited to) institutional barriers, time and resource scarcity, mis-aligned incentives, conflicts of values… 

2. The experience of research organisations developing new PhD programmes or research portfolios that emphasise extra academic goals and collaborations. Issues like programmes integration within existing organisational structures, managing collaborations and funding, supervision, quality assurance, success criteria, conflicts of values and trade-offs.  

3. Analytical or critical reflections on the policy and political drivers and on the actual implications of the promotion of PhD programmes and projects that address societal needs and urgent challenges.  

Scope 
This session discusses the challenges and opportunities of concretely implementing research concerned with societal needs and problems; and in particular, how it takes place in PhD and post-doctoral projects. 

We are interested in a broad category of PhD projects, which are often in essence non-disciplinary PhDs. So, we do not consider those PhD projects or programmes that aim at research within a well-identified academic discipline. By contrast, we are interested in those PhD that are inter-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary or applied. By inter-disciplinary we intend that the purpose of the PhD needs to use concepts and methods coming from different disciplines and/or to produce results that are not obviously falling within one discipline. By trans-disciplinary we mean PhDs and projects that need to combine scientific knowledge with knowledge coming from people, professional, users etc. and that reach outside academia. By applied we mean research that is expected to produce results whose value is not measured simply by criteria of scientific robustness and originality, but that include their fitness for functioning and problem solving in real world circumstances. These categories are non-mutually exclusive. Many kinds of research that have gained popularity in the last decades fall under this description. We think that RRI, Sustainability, Mission oriented Innovation, Transformative Innovation, Open Science, Grand Challenges, Action Research and many more are relevant examples. 

These PhDs have over the last decade considerably grown in number as they are considered, in research policy discourses and funding calls, key reflexive spaces for the direction of science, society, technology and innovation. 

While our focus is limited to this type of PhDs, we are interested in different perspectives:  

1. The personal experience of early career researchers: their challenges, their integration within the domains they cross, their access to the needed resources, the support that they receive, the institutional barriers that they meet, the skills they develop and their value, the satisfaction and work-related well-being, their expectations, hope and worries about their career and employment, the ambivalences and pressures that they meet, to publish, to perform, to be efficient, and, at the same time, to be reflexive, inclusive, critical, and do research in accordance to their own values. 

2. The perspective of the higher education organisations (mainly the universities). We are interested in reflections about the motivations for developing [RRI-related] PhDs, the expectations about their outcomes, their integration within existing organisational divisions (departments, institutes etc.) or within new structures, the managing of the collaboration with external partners and funders, the supervision, quality assurance and success criteria. Both detailed case studies and cohort studies are welcome. 

3. We are also interested in the policy and political perspectives. At the policy level, we welcome reflection on the goals and expectations that drive policies that encourage or even demand more non-disciplinary PhD programmes and projects, as well as on the incentives, metrics and evaluation criteria used to promote such PhDs and to assess their fitness for purpose. We are equally interested in broader political reflections about the role of non-disciplinary higher education in society and about its intended or unintended social, cultural and political implications. We welcome both national and international and comparative perspectives. 

Track leaders: Tatiana Aleksandrovna Iakovleva (UiS), Elin Merethe Oftedal (UiS), Arnt Fløysand (HVL) and Luciana Maines da Silva (co-chair, UNISINOS University):

Abstract: 
Recently some studies started to look into the relevance of RI for firms’ practices. These studies argue that while the principles of RI direct us to involve the user early in the innovation process, they lack suggestion of frameworks on whom to involve, how to involve them, and at what stage. While several researchers claim that RI is advantageous for businesses other studies point to the negative effects of RI on innovation processes. Thus, how and why RI should be integrated into firm and practices remains ambiguous. Additionally, there are limits on what a single economic actor might implement. Thus, it is becoming important to focus future research not solely on the firm’s practices, but also on how a broader network and economic eco-system in regions or nations can become supportive of the responsible innovations. Summarizing, in this session we invite contributions address firm practices of RI in regional context and we will work towards organizing a Special Issue on that particular topic in the Journal of Responsible Innovation. 

Full call: 
There is a growing belief that Responsible Innovation can contribute to addressing grand societal challenges, like climate change, resource depletion, poverty alleviation, aging societies, etc. However, it has stalled at the point of articulating a governance process with a highly normative approach without clear, practical guidelines for implementation strategies (Ribeiro et al., 2018). RI and its aspiration can only be achieved if it is adopted and implemented into practice. We have to acknowledge that the majority of innovation happens in the private sector. Yet, the literature mostly concerns early-stage research projects rather than their implementation at the firm level (Leminen et al., 2016, Lubberink, 2017, Thapa et al, 2019).  

However, most firms are either unaware of RI or find it challenging to implement RI in their corporate research and innovation activities ( Blok & Lemmens, 2015;  Iakovleva et al., 2021a). For successful RI integration, firms should see perceived added value by adopting and practicing RI approaches. Otherwise, RI concept may follow the same path as the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility, which has been criticized for being employed at the level of corporate philanthropy (Laudal, 2011).  

Recently some studies started to look into the relevance of RI for firms’ practices ( for example Callegari and Mikhailova, 2021; Gurzawska, 2021; Iakovleva et al, 2021b; Oftedal et al., 2019; Riaz and Ali, 2023). These studies argue that while the principles of RI direct us to involve the user early in the innovation process, they lack suggestion of frameworks on whom to involve, how to involve them, and at what stage (Silva et al., 2019). While several researchers claim that RI is advantageous for businesses other studies point to the negative effects of RI on innovation processes (Rivard  et al., 2019). Thus, how and why RI should be integrated into firm and practices remains ambiguous.  

While we establish the importance of firms practicing RI, there are limits on what a single economic actor might implement. Thus, it is becoming important to focus on future research not solely on the firm’s practices, but also on how a broader network and economic eco-system in regions or nations can become supportive of the responsible innovations. Regional and national initiatives can include developing organizational networks, clusters, and conglomerates, aiming to make user inclusiveness less time and resource-demanding for each economic actor. There may also be scope for innovation lab type environments enabling co-creation and facilitation of entry to the mainstream system. There is a need to look on enabling approaches—it might be a physical context, a toolkit or a framework methodology— through which stakeholders can be actively involved in the innovation process. 

To summarize, in this session, we seek articles that looks into (but not limiting): 

• how firms organize their entrepreneurial and innovation process to ensure responsible outcomes 

• How can stakeholder’s participation contribute to innovation process and to various forms of innovation (product, process, position or paradigm)?  

• Who are the agents who might orchestrate stakeholder’s participation?  

• What are the challenges associated with broad stakeholder participation in innovation process in firms? 

• What methods or tools of user engagement proved to work in firm practices?  

• How to develop responsible business models which ensure that during the innovation process firms anticipate, involve, reflect on stakeholder’s feedbacks  

• Assessment tools for RRI, for example to help to self-monitor firm’s behavior 

• How eco-system approach (a specific network of actors) might help provide a more robust framework within which different actors can explore ways to create and capture shared value? 

• What role regional embeddedness might play for enhancing responsible innovation processes in firms 

Selected papers from this track will be invited into a Special Issue to the Journal of Responsible Innovation, with a tentative submission deadline for a full paper in December 2024. Get the details about the Special Issue and deadlines here.

References: 

Callegari, B., & Mikhailova, O. (2021). RRI and corporate stakeholder engagement: the aquadvantage salmon case. Sustainability, 13(4), 1820.  

Fløysand, A., Lindfors, E. T., Jakobsen, S. E., & Coenen, L. (2020). Place-based directionality of innovation: Tasmanian salmon farming and responsible innovation. Sustainability, 13(1), 62. 

Gurzawska, A. "Responsible innovation in business: Perceptions, evaluation practices and lessons learnt." Sustainability 13, no. 4 (2021): 1826. 

Iakovleva, T., Bessant, J., Oftedal, E., & da Silva, L. M. (2021a). Innovating Responsibly—Challenges and Future Research Agendas. Sustainability, 13(6), 3215. Iakovleva, T., Oftedal, E., & Bessant, J. (2021b). Changing Role of Users—Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health. Sustainability, 13(4), 1616 

J. Bus. Indust. Mark. 2016, 31, 743–757. [CrossRef] 

Laudal, T. Drivers and barriers of CSR and the size and internationalization of firms. Soc. Responsib. J. 2011, 7, 234–256.  

Leminen, S.; Nyström, A.G.; Westerlund, M.; Kortelainen, M.J. The effect of network structure on radical innovation in living labs. 

 Lubberink, R.; Blok, V.; Van Ophem, J.; Omta, O. Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices. Sustain. J. Rec. 2017, 9, 721.  

Oftedal, E. M., Foss, L., & Iakovleva, T. (2019). Responsible for responsibility? A study of digital e-health startups. Sustainability, 11(19), 5433. 

Riaz, A., & Ali, F. H. (2023). What drives responsible innovation in polluting small and medium enterprises?: an appraisal of leather manufacturing sector. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-18.. 

Rivard, L.; Lehoux, P.; Miller, F.A. Double burden or single duty to care? Health innovators’ perspectives on environmental considerations in health innovation design. BMJ Innov. 2019, 6, 4–9. 

Silva, L. M. D., Bitencourt, C. C., Faccin, K., & Iakovleva, T. (2019). The role of stakeholders in the context of responsible innovation: A meta-synthesis. Sustainability, 11(6), 1766.  

Thapa, R. K., Iakovleva, T., & Foss, L. (2019). Responsible research and innovation: A systematic review of the literature and its applications to regional studies. European Planning Studies, 27(12), 2470-2490. 

Track leaders: Christian Wittrock (OsloMet) and Ellen-Marie Forsberg (NORSUS):

Responsible (Research) and Innovation (R(R)I) calls for groundbreaking changes in the science and innovation system [1-3]. Yet, despite efforts, implementation of RRI remains patchy [4]. Obtaining R(R)I requires change in organizations in the science and innovation system, as well as change at systemic levels. Organization theory has increasingly been applied to understand such change.

Scholars have mobilized neo-institutional theory and translation theory [5-8], as well as (organizational) learning [9-11], and theories on the intersection of organizational practices and language use [12, 13]. Likewise, studies have discussed the role of institutional entrepreneurs [5, 13, 14], as well as transfer between organizations in the science system [7, 15, 16].

We encourage scholars to further explore the use of organization theory in the field of RRI. We encourage studies eliciting mechanisms at play [17], and studies bridging levels of analysis [see e.g. 18].
We welcome case studies as well as broad quantitative studies.

References:

1. Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe, Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 2012. 39(6): p. 751-760.
    
2. Guston, D.H., Toward Centres for Responsible Innovation in the Commercialized University, in Public Science in Liberal Democracy, J.M. Porter and P.W.B. Phillips, Editors. 2004, University of Toronto Press: Toronto, CA. p. 295-312.
    
3. von Schomberg, R., From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment, in A working document from the European Commission Services, E.u.o.D. Research, Editor. 2007, Eurpean Commision, Governance and Ethics unit of DG Research: Brussels, BE. p. 27.
    
4. Tabarés, R., et al., Challenges in the implementation of responsible research and innovation across Horizon 2020. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2022. 9(3): p. 291-314.
    
5. Owen, R., et al., Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 2021. 50(1): p. 104132.
    
6. Ryan, T.K., N. Mejlgaard, and L. Degn, Organizational patterns of RRI: how organizational properties relate to RRI implementation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2021. 8(2): p. 320-337.
    
7. Wittrock, C., et al., Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation: National and Organisational Conditions. SpringerBriefs in Ethics, ed. F. Oosting. 2021, Dordrecht, NL: Springer Nature.
    
8. Wittrock, C. and E.-M. Forsberg, Handbook for Organisations Aimed at Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation, in RRI-Practice project report. 2019, Oslo Metropolitan Univeristy & ARC Fund: Oslo, NO & Sofia, BG. p. 66.
    
9. Egeland, C., E.-M. Forsberg, and T. Maximova-Mentzoni, RRI: implementation as learning. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2019. 6(3): p. 375-380.
    
10. Hansen, J.Ø., A. Jensen, and N. Nguyen, The responsible learning organization: Can Senge (1990) teach organizations how to become responsible innovators? The learning organization, 2020. 27(1): p. 65-74.
     
11. Klaassen, P., et al., Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility, in Responsible Research and Innovation. 2018, Routledge. p. 77-98.
     
12. Forsberg, E.-M. and C. Wittrock, The potential for learning from good RRI practices and implications for the usefulness of RRI as an umbrella concept. The Learning Organization, 2022. ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
     
13. Randles, S., Deepening 'Deep Institutionalisation:' Elaborating a Concept and Developing a Typology to Analyse and Contrast the Institutionalization of De-facto responsible research and innovation (rri); and H2020 RRI in Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs), in Joining Efforts for Responsible Research and Innovation (JERRI), B. Teufel, Editor. 2016, Manchester Metropolitan University: Manschester, UK. p. 53.
     
14. Zaharis, N., G. Eleftherakis, and M. Michali, Inventory of RRI governance innovation practices, in TeRRItoria project reports. 2019, The South-East European Research Centre (SEERC): Thessaloniki, GR.
     
15. Doezema, T., et al., Translation, transduction, and transformation: expanding practices of responsibility across borders. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2019. 6(3): p. 323-331.
     
16. Forsberg, E.-M., et al., Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation in Research Funding and Research Conducting Organisations—What Have We Learned so Far?, in Governance and Sustainability of Responsible Research and Innovation Processes, F. Ferri, et al., Editors. 2018, Springer: Cham, CH. p. 3-11.
     
17. Davis, G.F. and C. Marquis, Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization Science, 2005. 16(4): p. 332-343.
     
18. Thornton, P.H. and W. Ocasio, Institutional logics, in The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. 2008. p. 99-128.

Track leader: Kristian Alm (BI) and Heidi Karlsen (BI):

Abstract: Whistleblowing, the act of insiders exposing misconduct or wrongdoing within organizations, plays a crucial role in promoting accountability, good reputation and ethical behavior. However, the historical, sociological and cross-cultural dimensions of whistleblowing and its relationship to responsible innovation remain largely underexplored. This track aims to shed light on the multifaceted aspects of the interplay between whistleblowing, organizational transparency and responsible innovation from historical, sociological and cross-cultural perspectives. We invite researchers and practitioners to contribute their insights and expertise to this track. By engaging in interdisciplinary discussions, we seek to deepen our understanding of the historical, cultural, and ethical considerations surrounding whistleblowing, organizational transparency and responsible innovation.   

Call for Papers: We invite researchers and practitioners to submit their abstracts for the track "Breaking the Silence: Historical, sociological and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Whistleblowing, Responsible Innovation and Organizational Transparency." Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:  

1.      Whistleblowing and organizational transparency fostering innovation.  

2.      Responsible innovation of whistleblowing routines and conditions.   

3.      Responsible innovation and attitudes to transparency in organizations.   

4.      Historical perspectives on whistleblowing and its impact on responsible innovation.  

5.      Cross-cultural perspectives on drivers of increased organizational transparency and focus on whistleblowing.  

6.      Perspectives on the triad of whistleblowing, organizational transparency and responsible innovation.  

7.      Responsible innovation as creating a new institution for the support of whistleblowing and  investigative journalism, a future challenge for the cooperation between academics and practitioners? International experiences and visions.

Together, let us unravel the intricate connections between whistleblowing, organizational transparency, and responsible innovation to shape a more accountable and ethically driven future. 

Track leader: Anamika Chatterjee (NTNU and DLN):

Special track description: Biotechnology and life science research and innovation has increasingly required a consolidated integration with social science and humanities perspectives. The Research Council of Norway funded the Centre for Digital Life Norway (DLN) in 2015 based on the assumption that biotechnology should be fostered in a context of transdisciplinarity and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). However, this integration has often been difficult to realize and document. 

In this special track, the Centre for Digital Life Norway invites contributors to exchange reflections and analyses from a variety of perspectives, both from the perspective of RRI research in an academic context and based on actual experiences from integrated RRI in research, innovation or policy contexts. RRI contributions have ranged from being ‘instrumental’ to more integrated in the entire life cycle of biotechnology projects.  

We seek to raise questions around the application, integration, and role of RRI in biotechnology research. When is RRI meaningful? What is meaningful RRI in biotechnology and life sciences? What examples illustrate how RRI can change the trajectory of the research process and its outcomes? 

Special track format: 10 min brief introduction to the session. Approximately five to six 20 min oral presentations each with 10 minutes for Q&A, followed by a 10 min summary. The track is an open and interactive session, providing opportunities to seek advice, share experiences and communicate with audiences and speakers. The session will include breaks for reflection and networking. 

How does RRI work as a policy tool? 
The primary objective of DLN has been to foster transdisciplinary collaboration and so contribute to responsible and sustainable creation of value for Norwegian society. In this context RRI has been used as a policy tool in the design of the centre and its activities.  

The track concludes with a 15 min presentation from representatives of the Res Publica project to present project findings on how RRI has contributed to address this objective. 
A 30 min panel discussion with selected DLN stakeholders will discuss learning outcomes, dilemmas and reflections on the role of RRI in the centre so far. 
 

Track leaders: Harald Throne-Holst (OsloMet), Matthias Kaiser (UiB) and Christian Wittrock (OsloMet):

Research funders call for inter- and transdisciplinarity (Arnott, Neuenfeldt, & Lemos, 2020; International Science Council, 2021; OECD, 2020; Solomon, Carley, & Porter, 2016); fostering these novel approaches to research is viewed as a priority in research policy.
Such calls may originate in some major concerns: First, scientific disciplines act more and more like silos, that do not communicate well, if at all. Specialization of and within disciplines closes their relevance and communication with other knowledge areas.
Second, humanity faces a number of wicked problems (Crowley & Head, 2017), typically addressed as grand societal challenges (OECD 2020). The way to solve these is to encourage interactive collaborations across disciplines and various knowledge systems (Alvargonzález, 2011).

This is answering the societal call for producing transformative knowledge. Realizing responsible research and innovation (RRI) calls for collaboration not just across science disciplines, but across the natural and social sciences, and often if not mostly with partners from civil society. It is deeply committed to diversity and multiplicity of knowledge sources and value landscapes. However, reaping the fruits of such ‘radical’ inter- or transdisciplinarity has proven difficult (Tabarés et al., 2022).
We invite empirical and theoretical papers addressing the issue of interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity in RRI efforts. 

Alvargonzález, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International studies in the philosophy of science, 25(4), 387-403.  

Arnott, J. C., Neuenfeldt, R. J., & Lemos, M. C. (2020). Co-producing science for sustainability: can funding change knowledge use? Global Environmental Change, 60, 101979.  

Crowley, K., & Head, B. W. (2017). The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: revisiting Rittel and Webber. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 539-547. doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9302-4 

International Science Council. (2021). Unleashing Science: Delivering Missions for Sustainability. Retrieved from Paris, France:  

OECD. (2020). Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research. doi:doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/0ca0ca45-en 

Solomon, G. E. A., Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2016). How Multidisciplinary Are the Multidisciplinary Journals Science and Nature? PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0152637. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152637 

Tabarés, R., Loeber, A., Nieminen, M., Bernstein, M. J., Griessler, E., Blok, V., . . . Frankus, E. (2022). Challenges in the implementation of responsible research and innovation across Horizon 2020. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 9(3), 291-314. doi:10.1080/23299460.2022.2101211 

Kaiser, M. & Gluckman, P. (2023). Looking at the future of transdisciplinary research. International Science Council, April 2023. DOI: 10.24948/2023.05. available at:
https://council.science/publications/looking-at-the-future-of-transdisciplinary-research/

Track leader: Per Koch (NIFU):

The need for responsible research and innovation requires actors that can look at their own ideas and practices in a critical and creative manner. Institutional and mental lock-ins often lead people to follow existing tracks. They stop them from considering the unexpected and from questioning given objectives.
The futures literacy approach provides narratives and methods that encourage people to reframe their understanding of ideas, practices and knowledge creation. Futures literacy can help them develop skills that makes it easier for them to discuss the effects their research and innovation may have, whether these are negative or positive.
We welcome submissions that discuss futures literacy and other approaches to future thinking in the context of research and innovation. 

Track leaders: Anne Ingeborg Myhr (NORCE) and Bjørn Myskja (NTNU):

CRISPR has become a tool used in animal breeding for genetic improvement. Among husbandry animals it has been used to create bigger fish, sterile salmon, virus tolerant pigs and hornless cattle. It is also a tool used in laboratory animals for a variety of research purposes, including understanding human diseases and creating more efficient agriculture and aquaculture. As CRISPR has the potential to make precise changes in genes it is also relevant as a tool for the preservation of endangered species in the wild.

For this session we welcome contributions focusing on responsible animal breeding, including the application of RRI principles and approaches in animal breeding projects as well as contributions focusing on animal welfare issues or the social acceptance of the use of CRISPR in animal breeding. Contributions that raise issues of concerning the ethics or sustainability of CRISPR in animal breeding, are also welcome.  

Track leaders: Atle Midttun (BI) and Caroline Dale Ditlev-Simonsen (BI):

Corporate responsibility/sustainability became a megatrend around the turn of the 20th century to rebalance business models as markets globalized out of democratic control. Yet, a quarter century of Corporate sustainability has demonstrated its limitations.  

The track invites papers that take stock of current achievements and how corporate responsibility (CR) can move on and meet the 21st century challenges. In other words: What are the major successes, and failures of CR/Sustainability and what are the ways forward? 

To mention but a few core issues: 

• Do we need to see a scale-up of CR beyond the individual firm to sectoral standards and initiatives to see stronger effects?  

• How does international firms tackle the rise of multipolar globalization with emerging economies – some of them authoritarian, challenging the Western concepts of CR? 

• Should we refocus the economy and business models on well-being rather than material welfare only? And what indicators would we then need to include? 

• Other issues of importance to 21st century corporate sustainability

The track invites both conceptual and empirical papers, and both qualitative and quantitative approaches.  

Track leader: May Thorseth (NTNU):

AI is a powerful means for efficient information processing, potentially enabling improved political governance and a better-informed public. Open democracies are, however, threatened by the very same technologies, across the military and civilian sectors. Both sectors are vulnerable to cyberattacks, as AI enables disinformation and deep fakes. Additionally, the blurred line between the two sectors, shown by e.g., that civilian individuals may be responsible for cyberattacks against military goals. A further risk towards democracy is due to surveillance capitalism and behavioural surplus produced by Big Tech, such as Google, Facebook/Meta, and others.
The power to create behavioural surplus explains why: Big Tech companies thus have the power of tailoring desires of individual users. An important question for this track is how governance of AI technologies could be more responsible and robust in the future?  

Track leader: Giovanni De Grandis (NTNU/AFINO)

In this track we welcome papers relevant for the conference main theme: Transformative research and innovation.