Digital culture : blurred boundaries and ethical considerations

The Weberian sense of work and life suggests that working is something around which the rest of life flows. Moreover, work life and domestic life have been defined as separate for most people based on physical structures. That is, being physically in a building at work limited your ability to interact with those who are not nearby – not part of work. As such, social conventions regarding the uses of media at work have become part of our cultural sensibilities – we “know” it is not proper to have romantic discourse over the office phone, much less romance during work! Doing so becomes news. Yet, despite the construction of such distinctions, these workspaces and places have always been difficult to render as such. For example, one might consider the relatively recent development of teleworking from the 1980s or the “putting out system”[1] which dates back to the 1400s – both requiring work in the home. The papers in this special issue draw our attention to some of the ethical issues raised by the growing pervasiveness of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in our everyday lives and the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make distinctions between being somewhere (like work) and being away from some things (like one’s friends, social interests and other parts of life that are not integrated into this space or place [2] )...

Class notes : 10 principles of good BPM

The question concerning what makes for good BPM is often raised. A recent call from Paul Harmon on the BPTrends Discussion LinkedIN Group for key issues in BPM received 189 answers within two months, with additional answers still appearing. I have teamed up with a number of BPM researchers and practitioners to bring together our joint experience in a BPM workshop at the University in Liechtenstein in 2013, where we developed ten principles of good BPM, later published in Business Process Management Journal (vom Brocke et al., 2014). The paper, which has received considerable attention in academia, was ranked the journal’s most downloaded paper the month it was published. Slides on Slideshare that provide a brief summary of the paper have been accessed more than 3,000 times since they were first put online in March 2014. Given the importance of the topic–what makes for good BPM–and the positive response to the ten principles, I wrote this note with the co-authors of the original BPMJ paper to outline the ten principles and illustrate how to use them in practice. We invite all readers to engage in this discussion via any channel they find appropriate.

The ethics, aesthetics and practical politics of ownership in co-creative media

What is ‘best practice’ when it comes to managing intellectual property rights in participatory media content? As commercial media and entertainment business models have increasingly come to rely upon the networked productivity of end-users (Banks and Humphreys 2008) this question has been framed as a problem of creative labour made all the more precarious by changing employment patterns and work cultures of knowledge-intensive societies and globalising economies (Banks, Gill and Taylor 2014). This paper considers how the problems of ownership are addressed in non-commercial, community-based arts and media contexts. Problems of labour are also manifest in these contexts (for example, reliance on volunteer labour and uncertain economic reward for creative excellence). Nonetheless, managing intellectual property rights in collaborative creative works that are created in community media and arts contexts is no less challenging or complex than in commercial contexts. This paper takes as its focus a particular participatory media practice known as ‘digital storytelling’. The digital storytelling method, formalised by the Centre for Digital Storytelling (CDS) from the mid-1990s, has been internationally adopted and adapted for use in an open-ended variety of community arts, education, health and allied services settings (Hartley and McWilliam 2009; Lambert 2013; Lundby 2008; Thumin 2012). It provides a useful point of departure for thinking about a range of collaborative media production practices that seek to address participation ‘gaps’ (Jenkins 2006). However the outputs of these activities, including digital stories, cannot be fully understood or accurately described as user-generated content. For this reason, digital storytelling is taken here to belong to a category of participatory media activity that has been described as ‘co-creative’ media (Spurgeon 2013) in order to improve understanding of the conditions of mediated and mediatized participation (Couldry 2008). This paper reports on a survey of the actual copyrighting practices of cultural institutions and community-based media arts practitioners that work with digital storytelling and similar participatory content creation methods. This survey finds that although there is a preference for Creative Commons licensing a great variety of approaches are taken to managing intellectual property rights in co-creative media. These range from the use of Creative Commons licences (for example, Lambert 2013, p.193) to retention of full copyrights by storytellers, to retention of certain rights by facilitating organisations (for example, broadcast rights by community radio stations and public service broadcasters), and a range of other shared rights arrangements between professional creative practitioners, the individual storytellers and communities with which they collaborate, media outlets, exhibitors and funders. This paper also considers how aesthetic and ethical considerations shape responses to questions of intellectual property rights in community media arts contexts. For example, embedded in the CDS digital storytelling method is ‘a critique of power and the numerous ways that rank is unconsciously expressed in engagements between classes, races and gender’ (Lambert 117). The CDS method privileges the interests of the storyteller and, through a transformative workshop process, aims to generate original individual stories that, in turn, reflect self-awareness of ‘how much the way we live is scripted by history, by social and cultural norms, by our own unique journey through a contradictory, and at times hostile, world’ (Lambert 118). Such a critical approach is characteristic of co-creative media practices. It extends to a heightened awareness of the risks of ‘story theft’ and the challenges of ownership and informs ideas of ‘best practice’ amongst creative practitioners, teaching artists and community media producers, along with commitments to achieving equitable solutions for all participants in co-creative media practice (for example, Lyons-Reid and Kuddell nd.). Yet, there is surprisingly little written about the challenges of managing intellectual property produced in co-creative media activities. A dialogic sense of ownership in stories has been identified as an indicator of successful digital storytelling practice (Hayes and Matusov 2005) and is helpful to grounding the more abstract claims of empowerment for social participation that are associated with co-creative methods. Contrary to the ‘change from below’ philosophy that underpins much thinking about co-creative media, however, discussions of intellectual property usually focus on how methods such as digital storytelling contribute to the formation of copyright law-compliant subjects, particularly when used in educational settings (for example, Ohler nd.). This also exposes the reliance of co-creative methods on the creative assets storytellers (rather than on the copyrighted materials of the media cultures of storytellers) as a pragmatic response to the constraints that intellectual property right laws impose on the entire category of participatory media. At the level of practical politics, it also becomes apparent that co-creative media practitioners and storytellers located in copyright jurisdictions governed by ‘fair use’ principles have much greater creative flexibility than those located in jurisdictions governed by ‘fair dealing’ principles.

Principles of goal-directed spatial robot navigation in biomimetic models

Mobile robots and animals alike must effectively navigate their environments in order to achieve their goals. For animals goal-directed navigation facilitates finding food, seeking shelter or migration; similarly robots perform goal-directed navigation to find a charging station, get out of the rain or guide a person to a destination. This similarity in tasks extends to the environment as well; increasingly, mobile robots are operating in the same underwater, ground and aerial environments that animals do. Yet despite these similarities, goal-directed navigation research in robotics and biology has proceeded largely in parallel, linked only by a small amount of interdisciplinary research spanning both areas. Most state-of-the-art robotic navigation systems employ a range of sensors, world representations and navigation algorithms that seem far removed from what we know of how animals navigate; their navigation systems are shaped by key principles of navigation in ‘real-world’ environments including dealing with uncertainty in sensing, landmark observation and world modelling. By contrast, biomimetic animal navigation models produce plausible animal navigation behaviour in a range of laboratory experimental navigation paradigms, typically without addressing many of these robotic navigation principles. In this paper, we attempt to link robotics and biology by reviewing the current state of the art in conventional and biomimetic goal-directed navigation models, focusing on the key principles of goal-oriented robotic navigation and the extent to which these principles have been adapted by biomimetic navigation models and why.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

Beyond the Producer/Consumer Divide : Key Principles of Produsage and Opportunities for Innovation

Though popular, concepts such as Toffler's 'prosumer' (1970; 1980; 1990) are inherently limited in their ability to accurately describe the makeup and dynamics of current co-creative environments, from fundamentally non-profit initiatives like the Wikipedia to user-industry partnerships that engage in crowdsourcing and the development of collective intelligence. Instead, the success or failure of such projects can be understood best if the traditional producer/consumer divide is dissolved, allowing for the emergence of the produser (Bruns, 2008). A close investigation of leading spaces for produsage makes it possible to extract the key principles which underpin and guide such content co-creation, and to identify how innovative pro-am partnerships between commercial entities and user communities might be structured in order to maximise the benefits that both sides will be able to draw from such collaboration. This chapter will outline these principles, and point to successes and failures in applying them to pro- am initiatives.

Can we do better? Researchers' experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus

The goal of this study was to describe researchers' experiences in submitting ethical proposals focused on older adult populations, including studies with persons with dementia, to ethical review boards. Ethical approval was granted for an online survey. Researchers were recruited via listservs and snowballing techniques. Participants included 157 persons (73% female) from Australia and the United States, with a mean age of 46 (±13). Six main issues were encountered by researchers who participated in this survey. In descending order, these included questions regarding: informed consent and information requirements (61.1%), participants' vulnerability, particularly for those with cognitive impairments (58.6%), participant burden (44.6%), data access (29.3%), adverse effects of data collection/intervention (26.8%), and study methodology (25.5%). An inductive content analysis of responses revealed a range of encounters with ethical review panels spanning positive, negative, and neutral experiences. Concerns voiced about ethical review boards included committees being overly focused on legal risk, as well as not always hearing the voice of older research participants, both potential and actual. Respondents noted inability to move forward on studies, as well as loss of researchers and participant groups from gerontological and clinical research as a result of negative interactions with ethics committees. Positive interactions with the committees reinforced researchers' need to carefully construct their research approaches with persons with dementia in particular. Suggested guidelines for committees when dealing with ethics applications involving older adults include self-reflecting on potential biases and stereotypes, and seeking further clarification and information from gerontological researchers before arriving at decisions.

The ethical intricacies of injury rehabilitation within a dance training context

Exploring the ethical issues present in professional practice within the field of sport, exercise and performance psychology, this case study outlines challenges that may be encountered, ways to address issues should they arise, and the overall ethical considerations of supporting injury rehabilitation within a dance training context.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights : Putting Accounting for Human Rights into Practice

The “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework’” (the Guiding Principles), endorsed by The United Nations Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011, outline obligations for nation states that currently exist under international law and provide the first authoritative reference point for corporations’ human rights responsibilities. Of the 30 principles endorsed, half relate directly to business. The Guiding Principles have far-reaching implications for all businesses, both small and large, and represent one of the most significant developments in corporate governance this century. In response to a recognition of the potential impacts of the Guiding Principles on corporate governance, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia provided La Trobe Business School with grant funding to undertake groundbreaking research on the implications of the Guiding Principles for management and accounting systems within corporate Australia. This report represents the outcome of the study.