Building public trust and expectations of responsible outcomes in emerging technologies: Revisiting research ethics and formal governance

In the first comprehensive empirical model of public perceptions of responsible innovation (RI) (McCrea et al., 2024) the relative importance of four key elements of RI in the eyes of the public was established for two important societal outcomes: 1) public trust in research organisations, and 2) public expectations of socially beneficial outcomes from developing novel and potentially disruptive technologies. In their study, the two most important elements of RI for the public were science practices supporting responsiveness to society and risk management by research organisations. The other key two elements of research ethics and formal governance (i.e., legislation and regulation of new technologies) were less important in this model of public perceptions of RI. The relatively low importance of research ethics and formal governance in this model of public perceptions of RI was surprising given that research ethics and formal governance are considered important elements of RI. Further investigating potential reasons for this is the aim of this study. This present research explores possible explanations for the relatively low importance of research ethics and formal governance in this first comprehensive empirical model of public perceptions of RI (McCrea et al., 2024). It does this by repeating a survey Australian perceptions of RI which includes an additional societal outcome– public perceptions of socially unethical risks from emerging technologies – hypothesising that this is more related to formal governance (government legislation and regulations) that aim to minimise or mitigate socially unethical outcomes from novel technologies like AI, genetic engineering and quantum technologies. It also delves into research ethics by adding separate dimensions ethical compliance and research integrity by scientists to this repeat survey to explore their relative importance in building trust in research organisations when developing novel and potentially disruptive technologies

Modelling effects of intervening variables using path analysis

Path analysis models the effects of independent variables on dependent variables via intervening or mediating variables. As such, it models pathways by which variables affect each other. As a simple example, we may expect physical proximity to services and facilities to positively impact on level of satisfaction with one’s neighbourhood via satisfaction with access to services and facilities. So, a path analysis would model the direct effects of, say, physical proximity to services and facilities on satisfaction with access to services and facilities, and of satisfaction with that access on overall neighbourhood satisfaction, as well as the indirect effects of physical proximity to services and facilities on neighbourhood satisfaction. However, other variables also affect neighbourhood satisfaction, both directly and indirectly, and so including these would lead to a more complicated path analysis. Other names associated with path analysis are analysis of covariance structures, causal analysis or modelling, simultaneous equation modelling and structural equation modelling, all of which can be used to do path analysis. Figure 22.1 shows path analysis in its simplest form. The independent or exogenous variable (x) predicts the intervening or mediating variable (y) which in turn predicts the dependent or endogenous variable (z). This approach models a path of effects, usually representing a hypothesized process where x leads to y leads to z. The independent variables (x) are called exogenous variables because they are determined outside the system

Explaining sociospatial patterns in South East Queensland, Australia: social homophily versus structural homophily

Model simulations of residential segregation have shown that even modest levels of social homophily (or wishing to live near residents with similar social characteristics) gives rise to distinct spatial patterns of residential segregation. However, this proposition has been contested where social homophily is modest. This paper contrasts two explanations for urban sociospatial patterns (socioeconomic and demographic spatial patterns) in a region where social homophily is modest—South East Queensland (SEQ). The research question is whether sociospatial patterns are better explained by social homophily or by structural homophily. In other words, are they better explained by residents wishing to live in neighborhoods with similar people (social homophily), or by residents with similar social characteristics finding similar neighborhood physical attributes important, and thus moving to neighborhoods with similar people (structural homophily). SEQ residents were asked how important various reasons were in choosing their neighborhood. The survey data were linked to neighborhood social characteristics from census data with the aid of geographic information systems. Six neighborhood social characteristics in SEQ were investigated. Social homophily explained a small, though statistically significant, level of spatial variation in socioeconomic and ethnic (non-Western) environments. However, it did not explain any variation in the other four neighborhood social characteristics which related to household structure: that is, younger nonnuclear household environments; nuclear family environments; and older nonnuclear household environments, or disadvantaged environments. Moreover, structural homophily explained much more variation than did social homophily in all six neighborhood social characteristics. In regions such as SEQ, spatial patterns can largely be explained by structural homophily. Thus, modest levels of social homophily are not necessarily important in explaining sociospatial patterning.

Maintenance of the public realm in the face of rapid inner city densification: a case study of West End in Brisbane, Australia

In this paper, we use data from fifty interviews with residents of West End, an inner city neighbourhood of Brisbane, Australia, to explore opposition to the rapid densification of the area under Brisbane City Council’s inner urban renewal project, the River City Blueprint. Rather than focus on resistance to these plans as expressed in terms of threats to everyday amenity, such as traffic, parking, overcrowding, noise and overshadowing; our attention is focused on participants’ concerns about threats to what they see as a unique social environment. This is not the parochial or communitarian form of community but, rather, what residents perceive as an inner city community of diversity and tolerance, played out in a strong public realm with a tangible commons. It is the preservation of this public realm that will be explored in this paper, using residents’ own suggestions of how high density development might undermine it, but also how such development might proceed in a more sympathetic way against the backdrop of developer and planning interests in this illustrative inner city suburb

Impacts of urban consolidation on urban liveability: comparing an inner and outer suburb in Brisbane, Australia

Urban consolidation involving increasing densification around existing nodes of urban infrastructure is a strategy pursued by all levels of government for addressing rapid population growth in urban regions. This has both positive and negative impacts on the everyday lives of residents (or their urban liveability as perceived by them), even though urban consolidation is commonly resisted by residents. This paper aims to better understand impacts of urban consolidation on liveability by comparing similarities and differences in impacts between two Brisbane suburbs: an outer fringe suburb (Wynnum) and an inner city suburb (West End). Wynnum residents generally expressed less resistance to urban consolidation, with some residents willing to trade additional densification for additional amenities. Two issues concerning residents in both suburbs were aesthetics of high-rise development and traffic congestion. Building heights more than a few storeys above surrounding buildings were commonly seen as detracting from urban liveability, though buildings up to 30 stories were accepted by some if close to the Commercial Business District. Traffic congestion was seen as a problem in both suburbs reflecting widespread car dependency. Other impacts differed between suburbs, reflecting their different values and ways of living. For example, most West End residents were concerned about losing social diversity with declining housing affordability while many Wynnum residents were concerned about gaining more public or social housing and disadvantaged residents. The impacts of urban consolidation on liveability differ between suburbs, and local neighbourhood plans should be sensitive to local notions of urban liveability because residents often stay after urban consolidation, even if they perceive negative impacts on their liveability. These interviews reinforce liveability as primary focus for urban planning, and thus urban consolidation at the expense of liveability is a poor outcome for both local residents and urban planning