2024
Braun, Matthias; Hummel, Patrik
Is digital sovereignty normatively desirable? Journal Article
In: Information, Communication & Society, pp. 1-14, 2024, ISSN: 1369-118X.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Digital Sovereignty, Normativity
@article{nokey,
title = {Is digital sovereignty normatively desirable?},
author = {Matthias Braun and Patrik Hummel},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/is-digital-sovereignty-normatively-desirable/},
doi = {doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2332624},
issn = {1369-118X},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-04-23},
urldate = {2024-04-23},
journal = {Information, Communication & Society},
pages = {1-14},
abstract = {Sovereignty is a frequently used term when it comes to analyzing and shaping digital processes and transformations. For example, digital sovereignty has become a central concept in European politics in recent years. In this article, we argue that references to digital sovereignty have largely operated with an implausibly one-dimensional, overly simplified notion of sovereignty in general and its application to the digital in particular. We explore the question of what talking about sovereignty in the context of data and digital spaces can comprise. As a basis for this exploration, we distinguish three aspects of the concept of sovereignty: (1) sovereignty as absolute power, (2) sovereignty as embodied power, and (3) sovereignty as institutional power. We argue that, at least in the European debate on digital sovereignty, two of these aspects pertaining to the intricate relation between sovereign and addressee(s) of claims to sovereignty are consistently overlooked. Once understood as encompassing the three aspects distinguished above, digital sovereignty could be part of a normative framework that is normatively oriented towards vulnerability and freedom, that remains open and sensitive to tensions and ambivalences, and that continuously takes these as starting points for new approaches to governance and regulation of digital practices.},
keywords = {Digital Sovereignty, Normativity},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Sovereignty is a frequently used term when it comes to analyzing and shaping digital processes and transformations. For example, digital sovereignty has become a central concept in European politics in recent years. In this article, we argue that references to digital sovereignty have largely operated with an implausibly one-dimensional, overly simplified notion of sovereignty in general and its application to the digital in particular. We explore the question of what talking about sovereignty in the context of data and digital spaces can comprise. As a basis for this exploration, we distinguish three aspects of the concept of sovereignty: (1) sovereignty as absolute power, (2) sovereignty as embodied power, and (3) sovereignty as institutional power. We argue that, at least in the European debate on digital sovereignty, two of these aspects pertaining to the intricate relation between sovereign and addressee(s) of claims to sovereignty are consistently overlooked. Once understood as encompassing the three aspects distinguished above, digital sovereignty could be part of a normative framework that is normatively oriented towards vulnerability and freedom, that remains open and sensitive to tensions and ambivalences, and that continuously takes these as starting points for new approaches to governance and regulation of digital practices.
Marin, Lavinia; Vica, Constantin
Hic sunt leones. User orientation as a design principle for emerging institutions on social media platforms Journal Article
In: AI & SOCIETY, vol. n/a, iss. n/a, 2024, ISSN: 1435-5655.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Design, Normativity, Technology interaction, User engagement, User-centered design
@article{nokey,
title = {Hic sunt leones. User orientation as a design principle for emerging institutions on social media platforms},
author = {Lavinia Marin and Constantin Vica},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/hic-sunt-leones/},
doi = {10.1007/s00146-024-01932-0},
issn = {1435-5655},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-04-08},
journal = {AI & SOCIETY},
volume = {n/a},
issue = {n/a},
abstract = {The phenomenon of missed interactions between online users is a specific issue occurring when users of different language games interact on social media platforms. We use the lens of institutional theory to analyze this phenomenon and argue that current online institutions will necessarily fail to regulate user interactions in a way that creates common meanings because online institutions are not set up to deal with the multiplicity of language games and forms of life co-existing in the online social space. We argue for the need to enable and foster grassroots online institutions that can stabilize the norms of interaction by redesigning algorithms and user interfaces. Such online grassroots institutions would facilitate user orientation at three distinct levels: informational, normative, and semantic-pragmatic. We propose user orientation as a principle that would facilitate the formation of institutions aiming to regulate information exchanges between users inhabiting various forms of life. This principle of user orientation should guide design decisions, while designer teams would need to become aware of the institutional power unleashed when they set up interfaces and algorithms for user-generated content.},
keywords = {Design, Normativity, Technology interaction, User engagement, User-centered design},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The phenomenon of missed interactions between online users is a specific issue occurring when users of different language games interact on social media platforms. We use the lens of institutional theory to analyze this phenomenon and argue that current online institutions will necessarily fail to regulate user interactions in a way that creates common meanings because online institutions are not set up to deal with the multiplicity of language games and forms of life co-existing in the online social space. We argue for the need to enable and foster grassroots online institutions that can stabilize the norms of interaction by redesigning algorithms and user interfaces. Such online grassroots institutions would facilitate user orientation at three distinct levels: informational, normative, and semantic-pragmatic. We propose user orientation as a principle that would facilitate the formation of institutions aiming to regulate information exchanges between users inhabiting various forms of life. This principle of user orientation should guide design decisions, while designer teams would need to become aware of the institutional power unleashed when they set up interfaces and algorithms for user-generated content.
Copeland, Samantha; Marin, Lavinia
“It takes a village to write a really good paper”: A normative framework for peer reviewing in philosophy Journal Article
In: Metaphilosophy, vol. n/a, iss. n/a, 2024, ISSN: 0026-1068.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Academic Philosophy, Fairness, Flourishing, Normativity, Peer Review
@article{nokey,
title = {“It takes a village to write a really good paper”: A normative framework for peer reviewing in philosophy},
author = {Samantha Copeland and Lavinia Marin},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/metaphilosophy-2024-copeland-it-takes-a-village-to-write-a-really-good-paper-a-normative-framework-for-peer/},
doi = {10.1111/meta.12670},
issn = {0026-1068},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-03-18},
urldate = {2024-03-18},
journal = {Metaphilosophy},
volume = {n/a},
issue = {n/a},
abstract = {That there is a "crisis of peer review" at the moment is not in dispute, but sufficient attention has not yet been paid to the normative potential that lies in current calls for reform. In contrast to approaches to "fixing" the problems in peer review, which tend to maintain the status quo in terms of professionalising opportunities, this paper addresses the needs of philosophers and how peer-review reform can be an opportunity to improve the academic discipline of philosophy, whereby progress is understood as making the discipline more fair to the global academic community and more conducive to the flourishing of academic philosophers. The paper evaluates recent categories of relevant norms and correlating reforms. In conclusion, it recommends that philosophy pursue the norms of transparency and democracy explicitly when proposing peer-review reform and suggest that proposals for forum-based models of peer review are most likely to support those norms.},
keywords = {Academic Philosophy, Fairness, Flourishing, Normativity, Peer Review},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
That there is a "crisis of peer review" at the moment is not in dispute, but sufficient attention has not yet been paid to the normative potential that lies in current calls for reform. In contrast to approaches to "fixing" the problems in peer review, which tend to maintain the status quo in terms of professionalising opportunities, this paper addresses the needs of philosophers and how peer-review reform can be an opportunity to improve the academic discipline of philosophy, whereby progress is understood as making the discipline more fair to the global academic community and more conducive to the flourishing of academic philosophers. The paper evaluates recent categories of relevant norms and correlating reforms. In conclusion, it recommends that philosophy pursue the norms of transparency and democracy explicitly when proposing peer-review reform and suggest that proposals for forum-based models of peer review are most likely to support those norms.
2022
Danaher, John; Hopster, Jeroen
The normative significance of future moral revolutions Journal Article
In: Futures, vol. 144, no. 103046, 2022.
Links | BibTeX | Tags: Ethics, Futurism, Moral change, Moral revolution, Normativity, Technology
@article{nokey,
title = {The normative significance of future moral revolutions},
author = {John Danaher and Jeroen Hopster},
doi = {10.1016/j.futures.2022.103046 },
year = {2022},
date = {2022-12-07},
urldate = {2022-12-07},
journal = {Futures},
volume = {144},
number = {103046},
keywords = {Ethics, Futurism, Moral change, Moral revolution, Normativity, Technology},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2021
Löhr, Guido
Commitment Engineering. Conceptual Engineering without Representations Journal Article
In: Synthese, vol. 199, iss. 5-6, pp. 13035-13052, 2021.
Links | BibTeX | Tags: Commitments, Concepts, Conceptual engineering, Meanings, Non-representationalism, Normativity, Pragmatism
@article{nokey,
title = {Commitment Engineering. Conceptual Engineering without Representations},
author = {Guido Löhr},
doi = {10.1007/s11229-021-03365-4},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-01},
urldate = {2021-12-01},
journal = {Synthese},
volume = {199},
issue = {5-6},
pages = {13035-13052},
keywords = {Commitments, Concepts, Conceptual engineering, Meanings, Non-representationalism, Normativity, Pragmatism},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}