Search results

Current business challenges force companies to exchange critical and sensitive data. The data provider pays great attention to the usage of their data and wants to control it by policies. The purpose of this paper is to develop usage control architecture options to enable data sovereignty in business ecosystems.

The architecture options are developed following the design science research process. Based on requirements from an automotive use case, the authors develop architecture options. The different architecture options are demonstrated and evaluated based on the case study with practitioners from the automotive industry.

This paper introduces different architecture options for implementing usage control (UC). The proposed architecture options represent solutions for UC in business ecosystems. The comparison of the architecture options shows the respective advantages and disadvantages for data provider and data consumer.

In this work, the authors address only one case stemming from the German automotive sector.

Technical enforcement of data providers policies instead of relying on trust to support collaborative data exchange between companies.

This research is among the first to introduce architecture options that provide a technical concept for the implementation of data sovereignty in business ecosystems using UC. Consequently, it supports the decision process for the technical implementation of data sovereignty.

Insofar as the digital layer cannot be detached from the current democratic challenges of the 21st century including neoliberalism, scales, civic engagement and action research-driven co-production methodologies; this chapter advances trends, aftermaths and emancipatory strategies for the post-pandemic technopolitical democracies. Consequently, it suggests a democratic toolbox encompassing four intertwined trends, aftermaths and emancipations including (1) the context characterised by the algorithmic nations, (2) challenges stemming from data sovereignty, (3) mobilisation seen from the digital rights perspective and (4) grassroots innovation embodied through data co-operatives. This chapter elucidates that in the absence of coordinated and interdependent strategies to claim digital rights and data sovereignty by algorithmic nations, on the one hand, Big Tech data-opolies, and on the other hand, the GDPR led by the European Commission might bound (negatively) and expand (positively), respectively, algorithmic nations' capacity to mitigate the negative side effects of the algorithmic disruption in Western democracies.

This chapter develops a conceptual taxonomy of five emerging digital citizenship regimes: (1) the globalised and generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four intertwined, non-mutually exclusive and non-generalisable new technopoliticalised and city-regionalised digital citizenship regimes in certain European nation-states’ urban areas; (2) algorithmic citizenship, which is driven by blockchain and has allowed the implementation of an e-Residency programme in Tallinn; (3) liquid citizenship, driven by dataism – the deterministic ideology of big data – and contested through claims for digital rights in Barcelona and Amsterdam; (4) metropolitan citizenship, as revindicated in reaction to Brexit and reshuffled through data co-operatives in Cardiff; and (5) stateless citizenship, driven by devolution and reinvigorated through data sovereignty in Barcelona, Glasgow and Bilbao. This chapter challenges the existing interpretation of how these emerging digital citizenship regimes together are ubiquitously rescaling the associated spaces/practices of European nation-states.

In the twenty-first century, data are the world’s most valuable resource. Technological capacities for the collection, storage, analysis and sharing of data are evolving rapidly, and as a result, so too are the possibilities for improving the day-to-day lives of people. However, data use can also result in exploitation and harm; nowhere is this more evident than for Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, the rapid expansion of technology has not been matched by a sufficiently robust discussion of ethics nor the development of governance frameworks. Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) has emerged as a key consideration for this cause. Beginning with the presumption of Indigenous rights to tribal/nation sovereignty, IDS weaves together Indigenous research ethics, cultural and intellectual property rights and Indigenous governance discourse, with the view to offer solutions to the challenges being presented in an open data environment. This chapter will expand on this existing literature base and consider Māori data sovereignty in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand. More specifically, it provides the basis for a discussion around how kawa and tikanga drawn from Te Ao Māori might inform approaches to data ethics and data governance.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the underlying meanings, effects and cultural patterns of metadata standards, focusing on Dublin Core (DC), and explore the ways in which anticolonial metadata tools can be applied to exercise and promote Indigenous data sovereignty.

Applying an anticolonial approach, this paper examines the assumptions underpinning the stated roles of two of DC’s metadata elements, rights and creator. Based on that examination, the paper considers the limitations of DC for appropriately documenting Indigenous traditional knowledge (TK). Introduction of the TK labels and their implementation are put forward as an alternative method to such limitations in metadata standards.

The analysis of the rights and creator elements revealed that DC’s universality and supposed neutrality threaten the rightful attribution, specificity and dynamism of TK, undermining Indigenous data sovereignty. The paper advocates for alternative descriptive methods grounded within tribal sovereignty values while recognizing the difficulties of dealing with issues of interoperability by means of metadata standards given potentially innate tendencies to customization within communities.

This is the first paper to directly examine the implications of DC’s rights and creator elements for documenting TK. The paper identifies ethical practices and culturally appropriate tools that unsettle the universality claims of metadata standards. By introducing the TK labels, the paper contributes to the efforts of Indigenous communities to regain control and ownership of their cultural and intellectual property.

The increased use of, and reliance upon, technology and digitalisation, especially in the galleries, libraries, archives and museums [GLAM] sector, has motivated innovative approaches to the curation of cultural material. These changes are especially evident when collaborating with Indigenous partners. Indigenous Data Governance [IDG] and Indigenous Data Sovereignty [IDS], with an emphasis on self-determination of Indigenous peoples, have called for an emerging focus on ethical and culturally sensitive approaches to data collection and management across a range of disciplines and sectors.

This chapter reports on broader discussions, specifically with mid-North South Australia, Indigenous community members around the appropriate and ethical collection, representation and curation of cultural material on Country applying digital formats. It investigates ways to create a ‘future identity’ through built form as well as providing a ‘safe’ place for preservation of their oral histories.

It highlights the many questions raised around the ethically and culturally sensitive aspects of the collection, curation and archiving of Indigenous cultural material. It documents the preliminary outcomes of these conversations in the context of current research on IDS best practices in the field. The non-Aboriginal authors acknowledge our supporting position in the realisation of effective IDS and self-determination of our Aboriginal partners.

The exponential growth of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, coupled with advanced algorithms and increased computational capacity, has facilitated their widespread adoption in various industries. Among these, the financial technology (FinTech) sector has been significantly impacted by AI-based decision-making systems. Nevertheless, a knowledge gap remains regarding the intricate mechanisms behind the micro-decision-making process employed by AI algorithms. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned issue.

This research utilized a sequential mixed-methods research approach and obtained data through 18 interviews conducted with a single FinTech firm in France, as well as 148 e-surveys administered to participants employed at different FinTechs located throughout Europe.

Three main themes (ambidexterity, data sovereignty and model explainability) emerge as underpinnings for effective AI micro decision-making in FinTechs.

This research aims to minimize ambiguity by putting forth a proposition for a model that functions as an “infrastructural” layer, providing a more comprehensive illumination of the micro-decisions made by AI.

This research pioneers as the very first empirical exploration delving into the essential factors that underpin effective AI micro-decisions in FinTechs.

This chapter explores if alternative participatory co-creation approaches have the potential for deploying an emancipatory urbanism that is able to contest the urban dynamics of (digital) capitalism. It does so by focusing on the Barcelona case. Barcelona fully embraced a “smart citizen” approach in 2011 to become a European referent in smart urban strategies. However, in 2015, with the arrival of a new municipal government, Barcelona has situated itself contesting the “smart city” and at the forefront of alternative possibilities with its “technological sovereignty” strategy. This shift aims to remake the smart city agenda for citizens through the advancement of the right to information and guarantees to open, transparent, and participatory decision-making through new digital and platform technologies. The chapter argues, first, that “technological sovereignty” has been instrumental in re-politicizing the notions of (smart) citizenship and technology, deploying initiatives aimed at regaining public control on data and citizens participating in policy-making. Second, Barcelona’s technological sovereignty strategy, though framed as locally and bottom-up, is based on a global comprehension and diagnosis of the global dynamics of digital capitalism. However, sometimes, there still remains an over-optimistic stance concerning digital technology. Thus, for any alternative to the neoliberal smart city, it is necessary to decenter the debate from the technologies themselves or the local, and recognize that any emancipatory strategy is also about acknowledging that technology-led solutions are not autonomous of broader relations of production and complex political economy geographies.

The initial observation of this study is the gap of research in the economic application of data spaces in wholesale. With the lowering threshold in using digital technology in innovative services wholesale is confronted with new competition in their main business – the purchase and sale of products in large numbers. Wholesale must advance in their own business creating new digital services for their customers to stay relevant competitors in their markets.

The design follows an explorative, heuristic and interdisciplinary approach (social sciences and in-formation systems) of a multiple case study combining semi-structured, open and participating observation in three case studies. The cases were set in tourism, construction, as well as manufacturing and were each scientifically accompanied for more than one year during the identification of implementation of strategies for data spaces as digital entrepreneurial path.

The study shows four strategies in the implementation of data spaces in traditional wholesale. These data spaces have their focus in (1) the traded commodity with two specificities (1a and 1b), (2) the customer and (3) the cooperation of an ecosystem of companies. Each have their own challenges, chances and specifications like the data sovereignty. These strategies are embedded in the behavior of digital entrepreneurship.

This study accompanied and observed the entrepreneurial strategies of three wholesalers discovering new opportunities enabled via data spaces. These three strategies follow different approaches offering potentials for other wholesalers.

This study advances a reconceptualization of data and information which overcomes normative understandings often contained in data policies at national and international levels. This study aims to propose a conceptual framework that moves beyond subject- and collective-centric normative understandings.

To do so, this study discusses the European Union (EU) and China’s approaches to data-driven technologies highlighting their similarities and differences when it comes to the vision underpinning how tech innovation is shaped.

Regardless of the different attention to the subject (the EU) and the collective (China), the normative understandings of technology by both actors remain trapped into a positivist approach that overlooks all that is not and cannot be turned into data, thus hindering the elaboration of a more holistic ecological thinking merging humans and technologies.

Revising the philosophical and political debate on data and data-driven technologies, a third way is elaborated, i.e. federated data as commons. This third way puts the subject as part by default of a collective at the centre of discussion. This framing can serve as the basis for elaborating sociotechnical alternatives when it comes to define and regulate the mash-up of humans and technology.