Abstract

The ADAPT research centre’s ‘citizens’ think-ins’ provide a model of citizen-researcher dialogue in which stakeholders explore collaboratively the potential opportunities, challenges and benefits of emerging STEM innovations through a lens of ethics, trust and privacy. Launched in 2019, Think-Ins have engaged more than 500 citizens and 120 researchers in dialogue around the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in our lives.

In the last two decades, discussions about 'scientific citizenship' and the need for engagement between the sciences, technologists and publics have gained greater acceptance within government and institutional policy and practice in Europe (1). Underlining the need to ensure a multi-stakeholder approach in the development of AI, the OECD has highlighted that “We must develop tools to measure and monitor AI and its development, and emphasize a multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary approach”(2). ADAPT’s citizens’ think-ins aim to embolden citizens to have their say on emerging STEM innovations, while helping AI researchers gain important insights into public views, concerns and ideas about their work and its potential applications.

This Pecha Kucha presentation will share insights into the evaluation findings from the ADAPT think-ins series, which revealed positive outcomes for citizens and researchers:
• public participants felt more informed about AI and more comfortable expressing their views about STEM issues
• public participants had a better understanding of the role of STEM in their lives and felt more engaged with STEM research
• researchers had greater familiarity with diverse points of view relating to AI
• researchers found the opinions of public participants “useful”, “inspiring” and “valuable”.

The Citizens’ Think-In approach is flexible and can be adapted for different audiences and for online/offline/hybrid delivery. We will outline how we envisage the format being utilised as part of responsible research and innovation endeavours of research organisations in scientific fields beyond AI.

We will highlight how co-creation with stakeholders has been built into the Think-In process, from the identification and development of discussion themes, to the evaluation of outcomes for both citizens and researchers. Such co-creation ensures that the discussion content is of value to the participants and the audience(s) they represent. Through co-created scenario discussions this approach encourages participants to reflect on the values that should underpin AI development and its use in society, and to weigh up the benefits and risks.

Learning outcomes for session attendees include:
• Improved awareness of the citizens’ think-in model and its usefulness as a tool for fostering citizen-researcher dialogue around emerging STEM research and innovation
• Understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of think-ins to inform STEM research
• Insights into how to host your own think-in

--
Sources:
[1] Irwin (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences, Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1-18, and Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Project Report. Demos, London.
[2] Karine Perset, Economist at the OECD, speaking at the UNESCO Highlights the Ethical Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence at the WSIS Forum 2019. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-highlights-ethical-dimensions-artificial-intelligence-wsis-forum-2019