Open Data, Grey Data, and Stewardship: Universities at the Privacy Frontier

As universities recognize the inherent value in the data they collect and hold, they encounter unforeseen challenges in stewarding those data in ways that balance accountability, transparency, and protection of privacy, academic freedom, and intellectual property. Two parallel developments in academic data collection are converging: (1) open access requirements, whereby researchers must provide access to their data as a condition of obtaining grant funding or publishing results in journals; and (2) the vast accumulation of 'grey data' about individuals in their daily activities of research, teaching, learning, services, and administration. The boundaries between research and grey data are blurring, making it more difficult to assess the risks and responsibilities associated with any data collection. Many sets of data, both research and grey, fall outside privacy regulations such as HIPAA, FERPA, and PII. Universities are exploiting these data for research, learning analytics, faculty evaluation, strategic decisions, and other sensitive matters. Commercial entities are besieging universities with requests for access to data or for partnerships to mine them. The privacy frontier facing research universities spans open access practices, uses and misuses of data, public records requests, cyber risk, and curating data for privacy protection. This paper explores the competing values inherent in data stewardship and makes recommendations for practice, drawing on the pioneering work of the University of California in privacy and information security, data governance, and cyber risk.Comment: Final published version, Sept 30, 201

Foxes in the Henhouse: An Exploratory Inquiry into Financial Markets Fraud

Conventional understandings of fraud are organized around the fraud triangle first developed in the 1950s by Cressey. This conceptual device remains central in our pedagogy and research on this especially timely topic. As long as fraud is imagined to be not much different than a stereotypical act by a single individual out of financial desperation and impulsiveness, the fraud triangle provides a reasonably powerful conceptual organization. However, when applied to abuses that occur in highly organized financial markets, its application takes on new meanings that push the boundaries of its usefulness. Using interviews with traders and other securities market participants, this paper concludes that the prospects for ill-gotten gain are much more systematic and the product of incomplete regulation

Developing strong social enterprises : a documentary approach

Social enterprises are diverse in their mission, business structures and industry orientations. Like all businesses, social enterprises face a range of strategic and operational challenges and utilize a range of strategies to access resources in support of their venture. This exploratory study examined the strategic management issues faced by Australian social enterprises and the ways in which they respond to these. The research was based on a comprehensive literature review and semi-structured interviews with 11 representatives of eight social enterprises based in Victoria and Queensland. The sample included mature social enterprises and those within two years of start-up. In addition to the research report, the outputs of the project include a series of six short documentaries, which are available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/SocialEnterpriseQUT#p/u. The research reported on here suggests that social enterprises are sophisticated in utilizing processes of network bricolage (Baker et al. 2003) to mobilize resources in support of their goals. Access to network resources can be both enabling and constraining as social enterprises mature. In terms of the use of formal business planning strategies, all participating social enterprises had utilized these either at the outset or the point of maturation of their business operations. These planning activities were used to support internal operations, to provide a mechanism for managing collective entrepreneurship, and to communicate to external stakeholders about the legitimacy and performance of the social enterprises. Further research is required to assess the impacts of such planning activities, and the ways in which they are used over time. Business structures and governance arrangements varied amongst participating enterprises according to: mission and values; capital needs; and the experiences and culture of founding organizations and individuals. In different ways, participants indicated that business structures and governance arrangements are important ways of conferring legitimacy on social enterprise, by signifying responsible business practice and strong social purpose to both external and internal stakeholders. Almost all participants in the study described ongoing tensions in balancing social purpose and business objectives. It is not clear, however, whether these tensions were problematic (in the sense of eroding mission or business opportunities) or productive (in the sense of strengthening mission and business practices through iterative processes of reflection and action). Longitudinal research on the ways in which social enterprises negotiate mission fulfillment and business sustainability would enhance our knowledge in this area. Finally, despite growing emphasis on measuring social impact amongst institutions, including governments and philanthropy, that influence the operating environment of social enterprise, relatively little priority was placed on this activity. The participants in our study noted the complexities of effectively measuring social impact, as well as the operational difficulties of undertaking such measurement within the day to day realities of running small to medium businesses. It is clear that impact measurement remains a vexed issue for a number of our respondents. This study suggests that both the value and practicality of social impact measurement require further debate and critically informed evidence, if impact measurement is to benefit social enterprises and the communities they serve

Do the Ethics of Authorship Matter?: Exploring the Implications of the Office of Research Integrity\u27s Narrow Definition of Research Misconduct

Over the past 25 years, federal government entities have become involved in defining and regulating misconduct in scientific research. Consistently, these definitions of research misconduct forbid three key actions--falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism--but do not take into account other professional communication issues, mainly authorship. This lack of acknowledgement and regulation of authorship--particularly from the Office of Research Integrity, the nation\u27s highest research ethics body--seems to imply and communicate that the ethics of authorship are not important in science. However, this thesis demonstrates, through rhetorical, historical and interview research, that authorship ethics do matter to scientists; in fact, authorship is a leading concern, even if not defined or regulated by federal oversight bodies. The thesis then recommends how authorship ethics can be better acknowledged by federal oversight boards without slipping into positivistic rules and requirements, and includes a recommendation to integrate ethics instruction into science curricula

A Review of Dominant and Emerging Issues in Corporate Earnings Management

Samanthala Hettihewa, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in finance, School of Business, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, 3353, Australia. Christopher S. Wright, Ph.D., is a visiting researcher, Centre for Regional Innovation and Competitiveness, University of Ballarat, Victoria, 3353, Australia

CEPS Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity Technology, Governance and Policy Challenges Task Force Evaluation of the HLEG Trustworthy AI Assessment List (Pilot Version). CEPS Task Force Report 22 January 2020

The Centre for European Policy Studies launched a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Cybersecurity in September 2019. The goal of this Task Force is to bring attention to the market, technical, ethical and governance challenges posed by the intersection of AI and cybersecurity, focusing both on AI for cybersecurity but also cybersecurity for AI. The Task Force is multi-stakeholder by design and composed of academics, industry players from various sectors, policymakers and civil society. The Task Force is currently discussing issues such as the state and evolution of the application of AI in cybersecurity and cybersecurity for AI; the debate on the role that AI could play in the dynamics between cyber attackers and defenders; the increasing need for sharing information on threats and how to deal with the vulnerabilities of AI-enabled systems; options for policy experimentation; and possible EU policy measures to ease the adoption of AI in cybersecurity in Europe. As part of such activities, this report aims at assessing the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on AI Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, presented on April 8, 2019. In particular, this report analyses and makes suggestions on the Trustworthy AI Assessment List (Pilot version), a non-exhaustive list aimed at helping the public and the private sector in operationalising Trustworthy AI. The list is composed of 131 items that are supposed to guide AI designers and developers throughout the process of design, development, and deployment of AI, although not intended as guidance to ensure compliance with the applicable laws. The list is in its piloting phase and is currently undergoing a revision that will be finalised in early 2020. This report would like to contribute to this revision by addressing in particular the interplay between AI and cybersecurity. This evaluation has been made according to specific criteria: whether and how the items of the Assessment List refer to existing legislation (e.g. GDPR, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights); whether they refer to moral principles (but not laws); whether they consider that AI attacks are fundamentally different from traditional cyberattacks; whether they are compatible with different risk levels; whether they are flexible enough in terms of clear/easy measurement, implementation by AI developers and SMEs; and overall, whether they are likely to create obstacles for the industry. The HLEG is a diverse group, with more than 50 members representing different stakeholders, such as think tanks, academia, EU Agencies, civil society, and industry, who were given the difficult task of producing a simple checklist for a complex issue. The public engagement exercise looks successful overall in that more than 450 stakeholders have signed in and are contributing to the process. The next sections of this report present the items listed by the HLEG followed by the analysis and suggestions raised by the Task Force (see list of the members of the Task Force in Annex 1)

Evidence and future potential of mobile phone data for disease disaster management

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.Global health threats such as the recent Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks require rapid and robust responses to prevent, reduce and recover from disease dispersion. As part of broader big data and digital humanitarianism discourses, there is an emerging interest in data produced through mobile phone communications for enhancing the data environment in such circumstances. This paper assembles user perspectives and critically examines existing evidence and future potential of mobile phone data derived from call detail records (CDRs) and two-way short message service (SMS) platforms, for managing and responding to humanitarian disasters caused by communicable disease outbreaks. We undertake a scoping review of relevant literature and in-depth interviews with key informants to ascertain the: (i) information that can be gathered from CDRs or SMS data; (ii) phase(s) in the disease disaster management cycle when mobile data may be useful; (iii) value added over conventional approaches to data collection and transfer; (iv) barriers and enablers to use of mobile data in disaster contexts; and (v) the social and ethical challenges. Based on this evidence we develop a typology of mobile phone data sources, types, and end-uses, and a decision-tree for mobile data use, designed to enable effective use of mobile data for disease disaster management. We show that mobile data holds great potential for improving the quality, quantity and timing of selected information required for disaster management, but that testing and evaluation of the benefits, constraints and limitations of mobile data use in a wider range of mobile-user and disaster contexts is needed to fully understand its utility, validity, and limitations.A portion of this research was funded as part of the Science for Humanitarian Emergencies and Resilience (SHEAR) programme, by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people?

The concept of microcredit was first introduced in Bangladesh by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus. Professor Yunus started Grameen Bank (GB) more than 30 years ago with the aim of reducing poverty by providing small loans to the country’s rural poor (Yunus 1999). Microcredit has evolved over the years and does not only provide credit to the poor, but also now spans a myriad of other services including savings, insurance, remittances and non-financial services such as financial literacy training and skills development programmes; microcredit is now referred to as microfinance (Armendáriz de Aghion and Morduch 2005, 2010). A key feature of microfinance has been the targeting of women on the grounds that, compared to men, they perform better as clients of microfinance institutions and that their participation has more desirable development outcomes (Pitt and Khandker 1998). Despite the apparent success and popularity of microfinance, no clear evidence yet exists that microfinance programmes have positive impacts (Armendáriz de Aghion and Morduch 2005, 2010; and many others). There have been four major reviews examining impacts of microfinance (Sebstad and Chen, 1996; Gaile and Foster 1996, Goldberg 2005, Odell 2010, see also Orso 2011). These reviews concluded that, while anecdotes and other inspiring stories (such as Todd 1996) purported to show that microfinance can make a real difference in the lives of those served, rigorous quantitative evidence on the nature, magnitude and balance of microfinance impact is still scarce and inconclusive (Armendáriz de Aghion and Morduch 2005, 2010). Overall, it is widely acknowledged that no well-known study robustly shows any strong impacts of microfinance (Armendáriz de Aghion and Morduch 2005, p199-230). Because of the growth of the microfinance industry and the attention the sector has received from policy makers, donors and private investors in recent years, existing microfinance impact evaluations need to be re-investigated; the robustness of claims that microfinance successfully alleviates poverty and empowers women must be scrutinised more carefully. Hence, this review revisits the evidence of microfinance evaluations focusing on the technical challenges of conducting rigorous microfinance impact evaluations