Search results

Following the surge of documents laying out organizations' ethical principles for their use of artificial intelligence (AI), there is a growing demand for translating ethical principles to practice through AI governance (AIG). AIG has emerged as a rapidly growing, yet fragmented, research area. This paper synthesizes the organizational AIG literature by outlining research themes and knowledge gaps as well as putting forward future agendas.

The authors undertake a systematic literature review on AIG, addressing the current state of its conceptualization and suggesting future directions for AIG scholarship and practice. The review protocol was developed following recommended guidelines for systematic reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

The results of the authors’ review confirmed the assumption that AIG is an emerging research topic with few explicit definitions. Moreover, the authors’ review identified four themes in the AIG literature: technology, stakeholders and context, regulation and processes. The central knowledge gaps revealed were the limited understanding of AIG implementation, lack of attention to the AIG context, uncertain effectiveness of ethical principles and regulation, and insufficient operationalization of AIG processes. To address these gaps, the authors present four future AIG agendas: technical, stakeholder and contextual, regulatory, and process. Going forward, the authors propose focused empirical research on organizational AIG processes, the establishment of an AI oversight unit and collaborative governance as a research approach.

To address the identified knowledge gaps, the authors present the following working definition of AIG: AI governance is a system of rules, practices and processes employed to ensure an organization's use of AI technologies aligns with its strategies, objectives, and values, complete with legal requirements, ethical principles and the requirements set by stakeholders. Going forward, the authors propose focused empirical research on organizational AIG processes, the establishment of an AI oversight unit and collaborative governance as a research approach.

For practitioners, the authors highlight training and awareness, stakeholder management and the crucial role of organizational culture, including senior management commitment.

For society, the authors review elucidates the multitude of stakeholders involved in AI governance activities and complexities related to balancing the needs of different stakeholders.

By delineating the AIG concept and the associated research themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas, the authors review builds a foundation for organizational AIG research, calling for broad contextual investigations and a deep understanding of AIG mechanisms. For practitioners, the authors highlight training and awareness, stakeholder management and the crucial role of organizational culture, including senior management commitment.

The purpose of this paper is clearly illustrate this convergence and the prescriptive recommendations that such documents entail. There is a significant amount of research into the ethical consequences of artificial intelligence (AI). This is reflected by many outputs across academia, policy and the media. Many of these outputs aim to provide guidance to particular stakeholder groups. It has recently been shown that there is a large degree of convergence in terms of the principles upon which these guidance documents are based. Despite this convergence, it is not always clear how these principles are to be translated into practice.

In this paper, the authors move beyond the high-level ethical principles that are common across the AI ethics guidance literature and provide a description of the normative content that is covered by these principles. The outcome is a comprehensive compilation of normative requirements arising from existing guidance documents. This is not only required for a deeper theoretical understanding of AI ethics discussions but also for the creation of practical and implementable guidance for developers and users of AI.

In this paper, the authors therefore provide a detailed explanation of the normative implications of existing AI ethics guidelines but directed towards developers and organisational users of AI. The authors believe that the paper provides the most comprehensive account of ethical requirements in AI currently available, which is of interest not only to the research and policy communities engaged in the topic but also to the user communities that require guidance when developing or deploying AI systems.

The authors believe that they have managed to compile the most comprehensive document collecting existing guidance which can guide practical action but will hopefully also support the consolidation of the guidelines landscape. The authors’ findings should also be of academic interest and inspire philosophical research on the consistency and justification of the various normative statements that can be found in the literature.

This paper aims that privacy research is divided in distinct communities and rarely considered as a singular field, harming its disciplinary identity. The authors collected 119.810 publications and over 3 million references to perform a bibliometric domain analysis as a quantitative approach to uncover the structures within the privacy research field.

The bibliometric domain analysis consists of a combined directed network and topic model of published privacy research. The network contains 83,159 publications and 462,633 internal references. A Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic model from the same dataset offers an additional lens on structure by classifying each publication on 36 topics with the network data. The combined outcomes of these methods are used to investigate the structural position and topical make-up of the privacy research communities.

The authors identified the research communities as well as categorised their structural positioning. Four communities form the core of privacy research: individual privacy and law, cloud computing, location data and privacy-preserving data publishing. The latter is a macro-community of data mining, anonymity metrics and differential privacy. Surrounding the core are applied communities. Further removed are communities with little influence, most notably the medical communities that make up 14.4% of the network. The topic model shows system design as a potentially latent community. Noteworthy is the absence of a centralised body of knowledge on organisational privacy management.

This is the first in-depth, quantitative mapping study of all privacy research.

This study aims to provide a picture of the current state of art in the use of big data for decision-making processes for the management of health-care organizations.

A systematic literature review was carried out. The research uses two analyses: descriptive analysis, describing the evolution of citations; keywords; and the ten most influential papers, and bibliometric analysis, for content evaluation, for which a cluster analysis was performed.

A total of 48 articles were selected for bibliographic coupling out of an initial sample of more than 5,000 papers. Of the 48 articles, 29 are linked on the basis of their bibliography. Clustering the 29 articles on the basis of actual content, four research areas emerged: quality of care, quality of service, crisis management and data management.

Health-care organizations believe strongly that big data can become the most effective tool for correctly influencing the decision-making processes. Thus, more and more organizations continue to invest in big data analytics, and the literature on this topic has expanded rapidly. This study seeks to provide a comprehensive picture of the different streams of literature existing, together with gaps in research and future perspectives. The literature is mature enough for an analysis to be made and provide managers with useful insights on opportunities, criticisms and perspectives on the use of big data for health-care organizations. However, to date, there is no comprehensive literature review on the big data analysis in health care. Furthermore, as big data is a “sexy catchphrase,” more clarity on its usage may be needed. It represents an important tool to be investigated and its great potential is often yet to be discovered. This study thus sheds light on emerging issues and suggests further research that may be needed.