Search results

Large-scale data analytics have raised a number of ethical concerns. Many of these were introduced in a seminal paper by boyd and Crawford and have been developed since by others (boyd & Crawford, 2012; Lagoze, 2014; Martin, 2015; Mittelstadt, Allo, Taddeo, Wachter, & Floridi, 2016). One such concern which is frequently recognised but under-analysed is the focus on correlation of data rather than on the causative relationship between data and results. Advocates of this approach dismiss the need for an understanding of causation, holding instead that the correlation of data is sufficient to meet our needs. In crude terms, this position holds that we no longer need to know why X+Y=Z. Merely acknowledging that the pattern exists is enough.

In this chapter, the author explores the ethical implications and challenges surrounding a focus on correlation over causation. In particular, the author focusses on questions of legitimacy of data collection, the embedding of persistent bias, and the implications of future predictions. Such concerns are vital for understanding the ethical implications of, for example, the collection and use of ‘big data’ or the covert access to ‘secondary’ information ostensibly ‘publicly available’. The author’s conclusion is that by failing to consider causation, the short-term benefits of speed and cost may be countered by ethically problematic scenarios in both the short and long term.

The year 2020 is an epochal moment for governance and public administration. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has upset social and economic life, including the delivery of public services, and eroded domestic and international politics. It comes in an era of uncertainty resulting from the end of the New Public Management boom and a looming breakdown of the contemporary US-defined international order. Against such a sea change, we can hardly take business as usual. Change breeds indeterminacy but also induces reimagining. Any renewal and renaissance of public management has to address the ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions of governance in a low-trust and high-risk society. Both the capacity and legitimacy of the state need to be re-empowered, but no longer through the market. The dual failure of democratic politics and bureaucratic excellence in many countries has rendered the Wilsonian politics-administration dichotomy redundant. Amid the rise of East Asia, there are growing contentions over the conceptualization of meritocracy as alternative systems of governance and public service models seem to be delivering effective rivals. Governance performance may not be predetermined by regime types within a poly-polar world. We need to search for new reconnections, new leadership, a new basis for trust and consensus, and a new public service bargain to avoid getting bogged down in old wine in re-labelled bottle, or another singular universalist paradigm.