IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v25y2023i1d10.1007_s10796-022-10269-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-Shaping an Ecosystem for Responsible AI: Five Types of Expectation Work in Response to a Technological Frame

Author

Listed:
  • Matti Minkkinen

    (University of Turku)

  • Markus Philipp Zimmer

    (Leuphana University Lüneburg)

  • Matti Mäntymäki

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

Governing artificial intelligence (AI) requires cooperation, although the collaboration’s form remains unclear. Technological frames provide a theoretical perspective for understanding how actors interpret a technology and act upon its development, use, and governance. However, we know little about how actors shape technological frames. In this paper, we study the shaping of the technological frame of the European ecosystem for responsible AI (RAI). Through an analysis of EU documents, we identified four expectations that constitute the EU’s technological frame for the RAI ecosystem. Moreover, through interviews with RAI actors, we revealed five types of expectation work responding to this frame: reproducing, translating, and extending (congruent expectation work), and scrutinizing and rooting (incongruent expectation work). Furthermore, we conceptualize expectation work as actors’ purposive actions in creating and negotiating expectations. Our study contributes to the literature on technological frames, technology-centered ecosystems, and RAI while also elucidating the dimensions and co-shaping of technological frames.

Suggested Citation

  • Matti Minkkinen & Markus Philipp Zimmer & Matti Mäntymäki, 2023. "Co-Shaping an Ecosystem for Responsible AI: Five Types of Expectation Work in Response to a Technological Frame," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 103-121, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:25:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-022-10269-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-022-10269-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-022-10269-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-022-10269-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jingrui Ju & Luning Liu & Yuqiang Feng, 2019. "Design of an O2O Citizen Participation Ecosystem for Sustainable Governance," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 605-620, June.
    2. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    3. Cancan Wang & Rony Medaglia & Tina Blegind Jensen, 2021. "When Ambiguity Rules: The Emergence of Adaptive Governance from (In)Congruent Frames of Knowledge Sharing Technology," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 1573-1591, December.
    4. Scott Thiebes & Sebastian Lins & Ali Sunyaev, 2021. "Trustworthy artificial intelligence," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 447-464, June.
    5. Ian Manners, 2002. "Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 235-258, June.
    6. Petri Kannisto & David Hästbacka & Arto Marttinen, 2020. "Information Exchange Architecture for Collaborative Industrial Ecosystem," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 655-670, June.
    7. Amany Elbanna & Henrik C. J. Linderoth, 2015. "The formation of technology mental models: the case of voluntary use of technology in organizational setting," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 95-108, February.
    8. Granstrand, Ove & Holgersson, Marcus, 2020. "Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    9. Amrit Tiwana, 2015. "Evolutionary Competition in Platform Ecosystems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 266-281, June.
    10. Sam Solaimani & Harry Bouwman & Timo Itälä, 2015. "Networked enterprise business model alignment: A case study on smart living," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 871-887, August.
    11. Kirsten Martin, 2019. "Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 835-850, December.
    12. Colin J. Bennett & Charles D. Raab, 2020. "Revisiting the governance of privacy: Contemporary policy instruments in global perspective," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 447-464, July.
    13. Allen S. Lee & Richard L. Baskerville, 2003. "Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 221-243, September.
    14. Hoppmann, Joern & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2020. "Why matter matters: How technology characteristics shape the strategic framing of technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    15. Petri Kannisto & David Hästbacka & Arto Marttinen, 2020. "Correction to: Information Exchange Architecture for Collaborative Industrial Ecosystem," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 671-671, June.
    16. Tsujimoto, Masaharu & Kajikawa, Yuya & Tomita, Junichi & Matsumoto, Yoichi, 2018. "A review of the ecosystem concept — Towards coherent ecosystem design," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 49-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carmelina Bevilacqua & Pasquale Pizzimenti & Yapeng Ou, 2023. "Cities in Transition and Urban Innovation Ecosystems: Place and Innovation Dynamics in the Case of Boston and Cambridge (USA)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-30, September.
    2. Malte Jütting, 2020. "Exploring Mission-Oriented Innovation Ecosystems for Sustainability: Towards a Literature-Based Typology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos & Flechas, Ximena Alejandra & Facin, Ana Lucia Figueiredo & Borini, Felipe Mendes, 2021. "Ecosystem management: Past achievements and future promises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Yanzhang Gu & Longying Hu & Hongjin Zhang & Chenxuan Hou, 2021. "Innovation Ecosystem Research: Emerging Trends and Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Marcon, Arthur & Ribeiro, Jose Luis Duarte, 2021. "How do startups manage external resources in innovation ecosystems? A resource perspective of startups’ lifecycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    7. Peng, Hui & Lu, Yaobin & Gupta, Sumeet, 2023. "Promoting value emergence through digital platform ecosystems: Perspectives on resource integration in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Martin Engert & Julia Evers & Andreas Hein & Helmut Krcmar, 2022. "The Engagement of Complementors and the Role of Platform Boundary Resources in e-Commerce Platform Ecosystems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 2007-2025, December.
    9. Saadatmand, Fatemeh & Lindgren, Rikard & Schultze, Ulrike, 2019. "Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    10. Milad Mirbabaie & Felix Brünker & Nicholas R. J. Möllmann Frick & Stefan Stieglitz, 2022. "The rise of artificial intelligence – understanding the AI identity threat at the workplace," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 73-99, March.
    11. Bojovic, Neva, 2022. "Strategic framing of enabling technologies: Insights from firms digitizing smell and taste," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    12. Patrick Spieth & Tobias Röth & Thomas Clauss & Christoph Klos, 2021. "Technological Frames in the Digital Age: Theory, Measurement Instrument, and Future Research Areas," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1962-1993, November.
    13. Elias G. Carayannis & Luca Dezi & Gianluca Gregori & Ernesto Calo, 2022. "Smart Environments and Techno-centric and Human-Centric Innovations for Industry and Society 5.0: A Quintuple Helix Innovation System View Towards Smart, Sustainable, and Inclusive Solutions," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(2), pages 926-955, June.
    14. Tatyana Tolstykh & Nadezhda Shmeleva & Leyla Gamidullaeva & Victoria Krasnobaeva, 2023. "The Role of Collaboration in the Development of Industrial Enterprises Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, April.
    15. Marzena Kramarz & Lilla Knop & Edyta Przybylska & Katarzyna Dohn, 2021. "Stakeholders of the Multimodal Freight Transport Ecosystem in Polish–Czech–Slovak Cross-Border Area," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-32, April.
    16. Dakshitha N. Jinasena & Konstantina Spanaki & Thanos Papadopoulos & Maria E. Balta, 2023. "Success and Failure Retrospectives of FinTech Projects: A Case Study Approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 259-274, February.
    17. Lukas-Valentin Herm & Theresa Steinbach & Jonas Wanner & Christian Janiesch, 2022. "A nascent design theory for explainable intelligent systems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(4), pages 2185-2205, December.
    18. Emily Bacon & Michael D. Williams & Gareth H. Davies, 2023. "On the Combinatory Nature of Knowledge Transfer Conditions: A Mixed Method Assessment," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 1039-1061, June.
    19. Niyi Ogunbiyi & Artie Basukoski & Thierry Chaussalet, 2021. "An Exploration of Ethical Decision Making with Intelligence Augmentation," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Peter Viggo Jakobsen, 2009. "Small States, Big Influence: The Overlooked Nordic Influence on the Civilian ESDP," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 81-102, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:25:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-022-10269-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.