Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Local public services and the ethical deployment of artificial intelligence☆

T. Kinder a, J. Stenvall a, *, E. Koskimies a, H. Webb b, S. Janenova c
a
Tampere University, Administrative Sciences, Faculty of Management and Business, Kansleinrinne 1, Pinni A, 33014 Tampere, Finland
b
Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai Men’s College, PO Box 15825, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
c
The University of Birmingham, School of Government, Birmingham B15 2TN, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Responding to growing criticism that the use of artificial intelligence in public services reinforces unethical
Artificial intelligence activities such as discrimination, the paper presents two new cases from the cities in Finland, both self-describing
Public services as centres for the ethical use of AI. Structured by an ethical AI foresighting framework we explore how and why
Local Goverment
AI is being used in local public services and its outcomes, the degree to which current AI-enabled public services
are ethically evaluated and whether ethical evaluation features in trends for future AI use.
The research objectives are to demonstrate how AI is being deployed in cities claiming to be European centres
for ethical AI use, to innovate new service models and to present a new framework, based on social learning to
help analysis of ethics in AI-related innovation processes, in particular those enhancing accountability to citizens.
In doing so, we show in practical terms how ethical decision-making processes are identified and responded to
addressing explainability and understandability issues.
We suggest that negative ethical results from AI use can be avoided, however this requires an ethos of citizen
involvement in innovation processes and significant investment in times and attention to distribute learning and
opinions between providers, technical partners and service users include an acknowledgment that technical
partners learn from users as well as users learning from technical partners.

1. Introduction
Many local public services providers now view artificial intelligence
(AI) as a next logical step building on previous digitisation and infor­
mation and communications technologies (ICT) investment (Twizeyi­
mana & Andersson, 2019). However, researchers have highlight both
positive and negative outcomes of AI (see Moore, 2018; O’Neil, 2016;
Eubanks, 2017; Russell, 2019; Negtagaal, 2020). Especially practitioners
are seeking information and ethical guidance related to the design and
utilization of AI across a variety of applications and public services (see
Meupetc & Montanez, 2020). Public confidence in future AI-related
innovation may well depend on how innovators evaluate ethical
impact, a significant issue addressed here.
This research investigates how ethics are evaluated in AI deployment
in local public services. As Russell (2019) note, the issue posed is not one
of controlling the technology, but instead one of controlling the con­
trollers of the technology – the human agency shaping how it is utilised,
since as Freeman (1992) and the entire school of technology social
shaping conclude, no technology is neutral. Our paper has two objec­
tives. Firstly, referencing previous research to illustrate what role and
functions AI is currently performing in local public services and noting
that since all technologies have both positive and negative impact, to
evaluate AI’s ethical standard on local public services. Secondly, to
suggest how ethical evaluation can be embedded into AI-related local
public service innovations, using a new practical learning based fore­
sighting framework.
Ethical issues can arise in the development and use of AI that can
taint reactions to it inside and outside of an organization (Meunpetz and
Montanez 2020). We understand AI is as a complex configurable pack­
age of technologies, featuring machine learning, constituting a new
general-purpose technology characterised by unforeseen and non-linear
development and unintended outcomes. Ethical questions of AI use draw
upon for instance discussing ethics of data (Floridi & Taddeo, 2016),
algorithms (Ananny, 2016), and robotics. We note with Negtagaal

☆
We note the launch of the multidisciplinary Ethical AI for the Governance of the Society (ETAIROS) project, in which some of the authors are partners. We explore
expected future use of AI in Finland’s local public services.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anthony.kinder@tuni.fi (T. Kinder), jari.stenvall@tuni.fi (J. Stenvall), emmi.koskimies@tuni.fi (E. Koskimies), hwebb@hct.ac.ae (H. Webb), S.
Janenova@bham.ac.uk (S. Janenova).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101865
Received 31 January 2021; Received in revised form 10 September 2021; Accepted 19 August 2023
Available online 6 September 2023
0740-624X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Kinder et al. Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865

(2020) that algorithmic decision-taking is likely to have more legitimacy about to massively increase internet-of-things (IoTs) data-gathering
for technically simple decisions than those involving normative judge­ from a multiplicity of household activities. Here we explore the nature
ment. There are papers on ethical evaluation of AI application in local of AI by briefly reviewing previous research on the positives and nega­
public services such as O’Neil (2016), Cath, Wachter, Mittelstadt, Tad­ tives results of applying AI in local public services. Then we discuss
deo, and Floridi (2017); Eubanks, 2017), Edwards and Veale (2018), ethical issues and ethical approaches associated with AI’s use in local
Carcia, 2018, and Villaronga (2019). In this paper, we focus on the public services.
ethical standards of AI which have been the essential guidelines of AI-
innovation. To advocate responsible development of AI private organi­
2.1. Use of artificial intelligence in public services – positives and
sations, research centres and governmental organisations have pub­
negatives
lished over 100 AI ethics principles and guidelines in recent years
(Hickok, 2020), but McNamara, Smith, & Murphy-Hill (2018) argue that
The promise of AI is what Dosi (1982) termed a new socio-technical
ethical codes and principles had no observed effect on software de­
paradigm, though they more broadly posit an ICT paradigm. It offers
veloper’s ethical decision making. Like Kromidha and Côrdoba-Pachón
local public services new complementarities and capabilities - ways to
(2017) we envisage discourse as central to resolving conflicts and di­
solve citizens’ problems amounting to a new epistemic community
lemmas, the difference in our approach is that we consider reference to
(Haas, 1992) centred on machine learning. AI exploits digitalisation
ethical principles as central to the discourse content, perhaps because
heritage to give more out, than was programmed in (McClelland,
they are exploring discourse on (Albanian) policy whereas we are
Rumelhart, & Hinton, 2018; Mergel, Dickinson, Stenvall, & Gasco,
looking at implemented policy i.e. situation in which effects are known
2023). Machines are good at fast, complex information processing and
or are predictable.
decision making, whereas humans are better at creative and complex
Especially two aspects are missing in the discussion concerning
subjective judgements. Learning, in machine learning is a metaphor since
ethical standards of AI in public service innovations. Firstly, foresighting
what appears to be learning is rapid patternmaking from multiple and
and ethics are not well connected in the development of AI-enabled local
complex data-sources. Fig. 2 illustrates the technological ecosystem
services (see Villar et al., 2020). This is a practical problem since AI
constituting continuously developing AI and some of its uses. Local
innovations can be significant investment costs in local services.
public service providers hold massive databases to which the Internet-
Without foresighting dimension frameworks do not address AI risks and
of-things (IoT) is adding exponentially, for example from smart house
challenges. Secondly there are a lot of studies on deep learning, ethics
independent living and tracking elderly citizens (Otero, 2019). Thinking
and AI (Helbing, 2012; Ho, Soon, Caals, & Kapur, 2019). Mostly, this is
of AI as an ecosystem, which Arthur (2015) insists are complex and self-
related to issues on technological based learning in changing environ­
organising, captures interaction between different technologies and
ment. However, learning theories have not use who people learn in AI
their responsiveness to external events.
innovations concerning local services. In our paper, we present a new
Pencheva, Esteve, and Mikhaylov (2018) claim that AI creates
Vygotskian learning framework to analyse foresighting and ethical
transformational shifts in the public sector, for example Mikalef, Fjortoft,
standard for AI innovations public services.
& Torvatn’s, 2018 survey of eighty-three Norwegian municipalities
In this paper, our theoretical focus is on the ethics of AI use and
shows that 28% are using some AI enablement. Noting the UK’s poor
foresighting framework which includes the dimension of learning. Our
record on big IT projects, Mikhaylov, Esteve, and Campion (2018) make
research questions are: (1) How is AI being deployed in local public services
less sanguine projections, though in advanced AI contexts AI is offering
that have adopted the epithet ‘centre for ethical use of AI’? (2) Can a
radical new service models as Sun and Medaglia’s (2019) Zhejiang
framework for ethical-AI help embed high ethical standards in prospective AI-
Provincial Hospital case illustrates. If the alternative for using AI-based
enabled local public services? (3) Is it possible to involve citizens in AI-
services is queuing for example in getting technical documents required
enabled service designs and thereby improve accountability AI-enabled pub­
from the state, we note with Chen, Guo, Gao, and Liang (2020) that the
lic services?
AI service is likely to be popular.
The paper proceeds as shown in Fig. 1. After examining what con­
Our focus is on the ethical dimensions of AI use in local public ser­
stitutes AI and relevant ethical evaluative principles and practices, we
vices. As Fig. 3 indicates there is already substantial research on the
briefly review what positive and negative impact of AI in local public
positive benefits revolving around provider cost-downs and citizen
services have been found. After justifying a new ethical foresighting tool
benefit from information processing and decision taking. AI has targeted
and methods, we present data from the cities of Oulu and Tampere and
low-laying fruit (in-payments, diagnostics), avoiding complex service
following discussion, policy and theoretical conclusions.
areas (out-payments, normative decisions). For example, in health and
social care, AI in independent living offers service integration using IoTs
2. AI in public services: research review
sensory and signally devices (Kankanhalli, Charalabidis, & Mellouli,
2019) and links to health, security and transport services. IoT data
AI is no longer optional in public sector. For example, US healthcare
capture and signally depends on the 5G bandwidth; already a Chinese
uses 17,000 algorithms (Stanfill & Marc, 2019), every UK police force
Loongson chip reach 2.0 GHz allows petabytes of IoT data-sharing
employs AI-based profiling, and twenty companies are testing autono­
(Economist 161,219). While the positive aspects of machine learning,
mous vehicles (Stilgoe, 2018). Off-the-shelf AI applications include
for example in medical diagnosis are highly significant, as AMRC (2019)
Apple’s Core ML library and Google’s Tensorflow Mobile (Kilbertus et al.,
says, great care is needed to distinguish proven new capabilities from
2018). Across Europe ‘smart’ cities are adopting AI, with 5-G capability
hype and pre-clinical tests.

Fig. 1. Flow of paper.

2
T. Kinder et al. Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865

Fig. 2. Technologies combining to constitute AI.

Existing systems and broader inclusion of data Ahokangas 2012)

Expanded systems from IoTs Schorr and Rappaport (1989)
Baldwin (2016); O Neill (2016)
Act
inform users and implement decision Delone and Mclean (2003)
robotics and drones Ross (2016)
Billing, booking and payment systems McGrath 2010); Spieth (2014)
Examples: Wirtz and M ller (2019); Gupta (2019) and
Interpol (2019)
Beer (1979) and Stinchcombe (1990)
Specialist and robotic surgery Mayer-Schonberger (2013)
Accurate medical diagnoses and epidemiology studies Eubanks (2018); 020120
Maintenance work and disaster responses Levitt and Dubner (2005)
IoTs data from smart housing independent living Kinder (2002)
Ayres (2007); Kucharski (2020)
Interpol (2019)
Karvinen (2017)
Lee (2018)
Markides (2006)
Coyle (1999); Jackson and Victor 2019

Fig. 3. Local public service AI positives from previous research.

Research on AI use in public services also highlights some ethical Clarke (2019) provides an alternative list for regulation’s point of view.
negatives. Negatives are summarised in Fig. 4 categorised under data O’Neil (2016), Brindle (2018) and Eubanks (2017) critiques of AI ethics
choices embedding prejudice, and issues of redress, access, and control. are especially hard-hitting featuring practical case studies of prejudicial

3
T. Kinder et al. Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865

US research shows data choices, such as prejudicial

O Neil (2014) and Eubanks (2018)
historic data discriminates against staff and service users
Other researchers (focusing on process not outcomes)
find AI systems beneficial to employers but not staff
Liebowitz (2013), Willcocks et al (2013); Mayer-
Schonberger (2013); and Davenport (2014).

Lack of algorithm impact assessment make legal

Cath (2018) and Metcalf (2019)
redress against algorithms difficult
Abuse of AI undermines wider democratic systems
Absence of algorithmic accountability Moore (2018)
Shah (2018) and Shin (2019) Diakopoulos (2016)

Facial recognition entry can discriminate against

Buolamwini and Gebru (2018)
women
Simple errors by users difficult to adjust Eubanks (2018)
User classifications can discriminate O Neill

Compliance insufficient for legitimacy e.g. children at

Brown (2019)
risk profiling
Clinical black box: dangers of unseen interest conflicts
Manipulation and opacity can harm system users Lysaght 2019)
AI systems erode trust e.g. mis-directions The Verge (2019)
Depersonalisation by displacing humans Bartlett (2018)
Unchecked decisions can be harmful e.g. Flash Crash Berman (2010)
Reduced creativity Bostrom (2014)
Young people lose criticality and creativity
IoT data (Alexa, Siri, Watson) who knows? 1984,
Ford (2016)
Foucauldian future
Control of humans by AI as it gets more data Power (2016)
Illusory informed consent, OK box Redden (2018) and Kitchen (2014)
Lumpiness inhibits diffusion, slicing encourages it Russell (2019)
Winter and Davidson (2019)
Fennell (2019)

Fig. 4. Local public service AI negatives from previous research.

data choices for algorithms resulting in obvious injustices. For example,
Indiana’s welfare system is programmed to seek technical breaches by
claimants and to exclude them (Eubanks, 2017:81) and Pennsylvania’s
AI social profiling wrongly classified child neglect cases. Eubanks de­
scribes these and other examples as a digital poorhouse. Degeling and
Berendt (2018) point to a 35% failure rate of facial recognition for
women of colour and Brindle (2018) to inappropriate database choices.
After evaluating four international cases of AI deployment for
accountability, predictability, consistency and equality, Zalnieriute,
Moses, and Williams (2019) identify 150 positive points and 570
negatives.
This research is significant since as the Guardian (151010) reports, in
the UK one in three local Councils now use AI-enabled welfare decision-
taking systems that are many UK provided by US credit-rating com­
panies (such as Experian and TransUnion) or US data-mining companies
such as Palantir. Already ethical concerns have led to termination of
several contracts, for example North Tyneside dropped TransUnion
when predictive analytics erroneously categorised low risk as high risk
on important benefits. Hackney dropped Xantura from a predicting child
abuse project as unreliable and Sunderland City Council has not
renewed a $4.5 m contract for ‘intelligence hub’ with Palantir on a
troubled families programme.
As the negative impacts of AI use have risen, the ethical discussion
has activated. Next, we’ll discuss the ethical standards that currently
guide the deployment of AI technologies.
2.2. The ethical standards
Ethical evaluation is distinguished from other varieties of evaluation
by referencing standards of conduct between people, taking account, as
Roojen (forthcoming) states, of how one person’s behaviour impacts on
other people - ethical principles. We avoid the insuperable problem of
deciding which ethical code is superior and the reduction of complexity
to desiccated checklists, by inviting participants to evaluate AI using
whatever ethical code they deem appropriate. Like Fisher (2014) we
recognise that normative decisions about how relations between people
(including their organisations and technologies) should occur applies the
same principles (fairness, equity, respect, autonomy being examples),
whatever the situation.
In practical terms AI, like other technologies or innovations will be
evaluated using some combination of the ethical approaches on offer.
Principally these are deontological, relational, and role-based ethics.

4
T. Kinder et al.
1) Deontological ethics applied in relation to AI might include refer­
encing the Barcelona Declaration (2017)) and EU’s General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR, EU, 2020; 2020a). Such regulations
appear easily circumvented. For example, Veale, Binns, and Edwards
(2018) gives the example of the ‘OK’ button approving personal data
capture, allowing big-tech companies to evade restrictions.
2) Relational ethics, Tännsjö (2002) typifies this approach, might focus
on power relations (Friedman Sam & Giselinde, 2005), emotional
touch-points (Radnor, Osborne, Kinder, & Baranova, 2014), subjec­
tive user experiences (Gitelman, Jackson, & Gitelman, 2013) pat­
terns of use (Jobin, Ienca, & Vayena, 2019), usability (Kinder, 2012)
and value-in-design (Adler, 2018; Binns, 2018). The point of rela­
tional ethics is to avoid evaluations giving primacy to the technol­
ogy, examples being Job 2016) and Wirtz and Müller (2019).
3) A third strand of ethics people might employ is role-based, often
found in Asian, Confucian ethics, with Huang, 2013; Huang and
Justice as a Virtue, 2019) as an example. Here AI would be evaluated
by how it mediates relations between people, arguing that AI can
ambiguously be acceptable and unacceptable at the same time. It
assumes active citizens holding technology to account.
We include aspects of each approach giving synthesising lenses to
evaluating AI in local public services. Our approach then deems what­
ever ethical principles people affected prefer as relevant to evaluation,
without suggesting that because AI technology is new that a new syn­
thesis of ethical schools is necessary. There will be other new technol­
ogies and other new designs for public services. In short, the issues alter,
people’s ethical approaches within a context and culture alter more
slowly. In some situations, citizens trust mediating organisations to
evaluate AI technologies - Gascó (2017) suggests this is the case in Spain.
Whereas in Finland, citizens are more likely to insist on evaluating
technology for themselves.
2.3. The technological standards
Evaluation cannot ignore technical standards, which in the case of AI
emerge faster than standards governing usage and user protection. For
example, standards for personal care robots, (ISO 13482, 2014) hardly
mention users, similarly autonomous vehicles standards (Villaronga,
2019) and drones (Carcia, 2018). Few intercontinental standards exist at
the moment for AI (Cath, 2018a, 2018b; Cath et al., 2017), hence the
importance of the EU’s GDPR (2016) insistence on impact assessments
including the nature of human interventions in decisions (article-35).
Yet, Edwards and Veale (2018) criticise GDPR as insufficiently dynamic.
Cihon (2019) notes, to respond to societal risks associated with AI
development there is an ongoing ISO and IEEE standard work by two
existing international standards bodies (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42 and IEEE
SA). Standards address variety of things from technology such as bid
data and computational approaches to impacts such as trustworthiness
and bias. Still standards tail-end technologies and business models and
we cannot expect state or supra-state standards to ethically protect
citizens.
2.4. The legal standards usage and data
Legal standards too pose problematic issues for AI in public services.
Research by Diakopoulos (2016), Shah (2018) and Shin (2019) asks can
an algorithm be sued, should coding be made public, can database
choice be questioned? Discussing explainability, Zednik (2019) asks if
citizens are technically capable of understanding what algorithms are
programmed to do? Brown et al. (2019) criticises GDPR for not pro­
tecting citizens over mis-directions or wrong profiling. Burrell (2016)
argues that value-in-design software often features opacity to prevent
accountability, a feature Doneda and Almeida (2016) report as often
done intentionally, (termed scrambling), perhaps to prevent auditing (De
Mingo & Martinez, 2018).
5
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
Another set of issues specific to AI is how data is used, for instance
data ownership. Use control and on-sale pose ethical issues for local
public service providers and users as experiences partnering with big-
tech US companies illustrates. For example, Kroll (2018), Kroll, 2019)
concludes that control of data capture is impossible and Pesenti (2017)
calls for data trusts to control access and on-sales – already policy in The
City of Toronto (FT 171119). Such initiatives gain importance as public
surveillance cameras become ubiquitous leading Allam and Dhunny
(2019) to criticise techno-smartness as dumbing-down citizens.
3. Framework evaluation AI innovations in public services
Following Latonero (2019) our view is that citizen panels involved at
design stages of AI (national or local) offer accountability of platforms
apps and algorithms: accountability, not AI technology is problematic. Is
it possible to involve citizens in AI-enabled service designs and thereby
improve accountability AI-enabled public services? Before beginning to
answer this question, we first explore what framework is needed for
evaluating the ethical use of AI in local public services, arguing that such
a framework needs to look forward not backwards: a foresighting
framework.
Involving citizens and providers in ethically-evaluated AI-enabled
local public services, holds the promise of improved services with ser­
vice innovation and ethical acceptability running in parallel. Such an
outlook begins with practical problem citizen have and from an array of
potential new solution (Martin & Irvine, 1989; Martin & Irvine, 1989;
Miles and Sparks, 2013) selects the optimal way forward for that context
and culture. Foresighting aims to evaluate uncertainties and anticipates
long-term decision consequences and social acceptability (Ahlqvist
et al., 2012; Bell, 2003/1973; Havas et al., 2010). As Dufva and Ahlqvist,
Nieminen, & Tuominen (2012) note, problem-centredness and user
(citizen) involvement in otherwise technical decisions itself, enhances
the chances of reaching a workable and socially-acceptable new solu­
tion. Effective foresighting draws into new service design processes
multi-levels of people and services affected allowing both bottom-up
and top-down contributions.
Vygotsky (1934) and Stenvall, Kinder and Kuoppakangas (2018)
emphasise that learning is socially constructed; making sense of new
artefacts (activity) is mediated by context and culture alongside previous
learning inside zones of proximal development (ZPD; see Wertsch 1985;
Lave 1988; Daniels 2001). Experience blends with new information to
make sense of new learning. Consciousness for Vygotsky unifies all
cognitive learning processes (Nardi, 1996). For Vygotsky, all learning is
social: cognitions always reference culture and context, mediated
through language – as learning is internalised, individuals create new
combinations and interpretations resulting in new knowledge (Daniels,
2001).
We identify significant factors constituting a foresighting framework
for how AI may (or not) help improve local public services. Our
framework (Fig. 5) avoids technological-focusing (e.g. Venkatesh &
Davis, 1996) by embedding ethics and involving citizens thus grounding
a new solution in the capacity and capability constraints of a particular
local public service context. Our Fig. 5 framework envisages new
AI-enabled local public services as a learning environment in which AI,
users and providers interact and iterate machine learned outcomes in
multiple ‘what-if’ scenarios. Unlike Xafis et al. (2019) we avoid simply
applying generic ethical principles. For example, Gasser and Almeida
(2017) and Gupta’s (2019) AI governance frameworks have merit if
governances are the issue, however our concern is viable new service
models (technical, social and financial), and their ethical acceptability.
As Winter and Davidson (2019) point out, consent is especially prob­
lematic for AI since opacity is inherent when previously gathered data is
referenced. We seek to avoid the managerialism inherent in Salamon &
Anheier (2002) and Young, Bullock, and Lecy (2019) AI evaluation
frameworks. Taking citizens and their problems as a unit of analysis,
allows citizens to walk-through new solutions, identifying problematic
T. Kinder et al.
New service design involving users
and proivder and later AI specialist
1 1
Individual Organising
cognitions services
* Problem with 3 * New model experiments
existing service(s) * Capabilities
* Emotional * Algorith iterations
need to change * Database selections
* User and SLB * Information flow helping
cognitions to understand problem
reframing problem Learning:
* Unlearning and 4 delivery
design From design to delivery
"what-ifs" problem
"Hard" context "Soft" Culture
* Regulations/standards * Wider, work and
* Budgets/structures occupational cultures
* Policy setting * Attitudes towards AI
* IT capabilities
2 2
Fig. 5. Framework.
emotional touchpoints (Radnor et al., 2014). Leslie (2019) and Lysaght,
Lim, Xafis, and Ngiam (2019) offer frameworks closest to our purpose.
Citing examples from healthcare, Lysaght et al. adopt a big data
approach (from Xafis et al., 2019) and unearth important processual
challenges and opportunities from AI. However, though they feature
machine learning, their focus is on complex decision support systems
and under-values AI’s potential radical innovations. Presciently, Janssen
and Kuk (2016) importantly noted that these challenges include the
epistemic and social choices underlying how structure is given to big
data, the degree to which the databases are open or closed and critical
for our analysis the extent to which beyond pattern recognition, big-data
analysed (in our case by AI machine learning) creates counter-factuals
that challenge perceived wisdom.
Fig. 5 applies a Vygotskian learning framework (Engeström, 2008) to
problem solving using AI, foresighting potential new local public service
solutions that include ethical evaluation and accountabilities. The left
figure represents service redesign and the right new service delivery.
Each figure is based around five Vygotskian variables: (a) individual
cognitions, (b) organising services, (c) context, (d) culture and (e) in the
centre, the learned ethical sense-making. In (a) individuals intellectually
and emotionally recognise the need for service change and think.
about new models, this occurs (b) in a service organising and
experimentation, using existing capabilities and new information or
service routines suggested by AI. These new service ideas are gathered in
a specific context (c; budgets, structures, rules, standards) and culture
(d; in our case Finland’s wider social culture and the occupational cul­
tures in health and social care), including attitudes towards AI. Learning
new service approaches occurs in four inter-relationships: (1) between
cognitive individual agents and the organising set-up in which they
operate and (2) interaction between stability and change in the specific
context and culture of the service problem. These two inter-relationships
inform and shape the other in variable, shown as (4): the content and
dynamics of the new learning – in this case a new service model
involving AI algorithms and databases iterations that help define and
facilitate the new service model. Shifting to the figure on the right,
similar learning processes occur after the new model is trialled or
launched, this time incrementally altering and improving the model to
take account of performance, ethical and accountability issues. In the
framework, the service model moves from new design to operation and
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
New service delivery: feedback loops + AI
specialist improvements + ethical and
Individual Organising
cognitions services
* Emotional re-attachment? 3 * New ways-of-working,
* Subjective experiences of roles and relationships
new service model * System inputs from
* Is service problem solved? machine learning
* Evaluation of ethics &
accountabilities
Learning: * Algorithm iterations
4 hone service system
using AI
"Hard" context "Soft" Culture
* Changed context - AI * New service cultures?
acceptable? * Relationalities now AI
* Strengthened role for AI supported/shaped?
e.g. dataset access?
* Accessibility of relevant
databases
evaluation. AI features as support to the new service; enabling not
leading the change.
For example, if loneliness were the problem, users and front-line staff
might agree a new service model involving/incentivising lonely people
to engage in a range of information flows and activities not previously,
access perhaps including health and education. The new service is
‘honed’ to take account of organising possibilities in a particular context
and culture. AI may add information flow and understanding (e.g. health
data, transport links, chat bots). During design iterations initial algo­
rithms and data-sources may be changed depending on user feedback.
After launch or trial, users can give more feedback, including subjective
experiences, presenting further opportunities to improve the service
model.
4. Method
Steels and Lopez (2018) note that many EU cities aspire to becoming
ethical AI centres; two features in this research: Tampere and Oulu.
These Finnish cities are not typical: both have a heritage of worl­
d‑leading software clusters, previously supporting Nokia and now sup­
porting advanced software sectors. The cities were chosen because
untypically, they have explicitly decided to re-envision their services
through the lens of AI, explicitly accepting the Finnish Government
challenge to become leading centres for ethical AI use in public services.
Both agreed to a series of interviews (Fig. 6) with important agents as
part of their ongoing thinking about AI, knowing that part of the
research intention was to suggest a framework for future thinking in
addition to recording current ideas on AI in local public services.
Fig. 6 shows interviewees as representative of private, 3S and public
sector in each city ecosystem (3S in this case are local, volunteer-based
organisations for example, offering care to lonely elderly citizens in
Oulu and language learning to migrants in Tampere). Interviews lasted
an hour, interviewers ‘prodding’ and asking ‘why’ questions. Our
interview questionnaire sought stories of intended future in AI use and
ethics attitudes, with questions following the Fig. 5 framework. Five of
the seven questions began, can you tell me a story about …. We used a
cognitive conversation method (Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, &
Holland, 1985) allowing interviewees to narrate terminology, processes
inter-relating agents and sequences cogent stories linking evidence and
6
T. Kinder et al.
Fig. 6. Interviewees: gender, and organization.
interpretation.
All interviewees gave written consent prior to interviews, subject to
guaranteed confidentiality. Interviews were conducted by Professors
Author-1 and Author-2 in May 2019. All except one interview was
conducted in English, the results were transcribed and dropped into
NVivo. Initially, we reflected on the transcriptions, identifying patterns
and primary codes, which after combination led to five primary codes:
processes, agents, learning, ecosystem, outcomes. Short cases presenting
our results are structured using variables from the framework (Fig. 2)
beginning with a summary of AI in public services (Figs. 8 and 9). In
analysis we triangulate between the interview evidence (statements
representative of group opinions), previous research findings and our
own sense-making, using abduction i.e. combining both deductive and
inductive reasoning (Janssen & Kuk, 2016).
Having closely followed Bryman (1988) and Yin (1994) on the
conduct of social research we believe there is internal validity. Gener­
alisation from these results would need to follow careful
re-contextualisation, since as we will show the processes and relation­
ships around leadership in each ecosystem are strongly influenced by
context and culture.
5. Case studies
Finnish Government, companies and researchers view AI as central
to the future. MEAE (2017) calls for Finland to become a European
centre for ethical AI, building from existing software competence and
capacity. The report identifies process and product AI uses in local
public services, giving examples from transport, energy and security,
health and social care, and payment systems, allowing comparison be­
tween cities, using the framework developed above.
5.1. Tampere
Fig. 7 summarises the results of ten interviews (Fig. 6) with public,
private and 3S leaders in Tampere. Fig. 7 is structured by the variable in
our Fig. 5 framework, highlighting current AI-enabled public services
examples, trends in AI-use in local public services and how ethics are
embedded in AI deployment. Our case study too is structured by the
framework variables.
For a Development Manager with Tampere Region, riding the wave of
7
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
ethical AI in public services is best done cooperating with companies
entrenched in the city: less-rooted companies she argues pay less
attention to local problems and customised local solutions. Tampere’s
Strategy 2030 centres on ethical AI helping to solve problems in the city
and providing an industrial base that ensures economic success: bouncing
back from Nokia’s contraction using software capabilities developed in
Nokia’s ecosystem. (Direct quotations are in italics).
5.1.1. Individual cognitions and service organising
AI companies are drawn to the city’s public services because they are
the source of large databases AI requires. Public services reveal a
multitude of problems that can be resolved by applying AI to life-as-lived
problems. The Development Manager at Tampere University (applied
science) illustrates this by pointing to the flows of issues or complaints
raised by patients to Doctors and staff at the University Hospital chan­
nelling research in a problem-centred definitely not technology-centred
direction.
Many useful ideas in which AI later features, I-3 (a Project Manager
with the City), come from school projects, in which pupils apply AI to
problems. Often the school project does not technically answer the
problem, they help frame the problem, which companies or researchers
then pick-up at one of the many informal gatherings held between
schools, companies and the university. She gives examples from school
catering, synchronising activities of interest to young people, city
transport and police deployment: each of which now have AI-enabled
new solutions in the City. The one of private sector informants echoes
this view of how cognitions of problems and AI-enabled new solutions
become prominent in informal chit-chat and discussions. When the people
with the problem help frame the problem, from the very beginning, AI
technicians are made aware of the ethical dimensions to the problem
solution: they build a picture by layering pieces of information making links
that sets of public service users were unaware of. A City Director (I-6)
relates how school curricula and museum exhibitions now synchronise
using AI-tools providing students with extra-curricular information and
study-links.
One City Project Manager (I-3) relates how we changed our focus. The
carbon neutral city strategy has been guided towards one that in addi­
tion to large company links (energy generation and distribution) also
now includes a large array of small projects (food waste from restaurants
and processing, combined heat and power, insulation). Some of these
began as school projects, others the result of businesses and families
calculating their own carbon footprint.
A software company CEO (I-10) told how robotics are used in agri­
culture and forestry. Formal ethical standards are used to also include
ethical issues important to Tampere Region (view of the lake, water
courses) articulated in public consultations. From the applied science
departments of the University, (I-8) noted how projects developed and
tested by the university in conjunction with companies and the City
(including health apps, flexible fabrics and online security), were all
subject to change and improvement after exposure to wider social
ethical feedback. He says feedback is only possible because trust in the
city is high, key players such as companies and the university respect the
viewpoints of the City and service users. The Development Manager (1I-
2) sums up this point: (I-2). Open discussion of how we use the data is the
best way to avoid criticism of unethical uses of AI. In summary, the in­
terviewees picture AI-related developments in Tampere’s local public
services as problem-centred and influenced by user and partner feed­
back, an important element of which is ethical (relational and social)
acceptability.
5.1.2. New public service models and AI iterations (context and culture,
ethics)
MyData is a mobile device healthcare app, widely used in the City,
for which numerous interviewees offered a perspective. The Develop­
ment Manager at the University Hospital (I-9) mentioned it giving cli­
nicians guidance on demand which helps smoothing and real-time cost
T. Kinder et al. Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865

AI networks comprising citizens, Ecosystems using AI in Ethical issues embedded into

City Council, university, 3S and
companies
Apps: range of health and
wellbeing apps
Integrated health & social care
databases automating reminders
to elderly citizens of
appointments, medicines etc
Bio-medical solutions
Clinical decisions
Stem cell cultures
, a mobile device
healthcare app, guiding Doctor
actions/decisions + advice to
citizens
Loneliness e.g. homecare
robotics
Patterning and profiling life-
cycles
Independent living technologies
City education curricula
Children at risk
AI-based education needs
analysis and opportunity planning
over life-cycle and for migrants
wide consulting on
city s future
Public + private transport
electric, autonomous vehicles +
SME innovations
Carbon neutrality 50% renewable
generation target
Finnish Energy
AI-related traffic management
service innovations
Ethics embedded
AI in city long-term strategy
Social acceptance of health
improvement + data access
apps
Practical AI-enabled services
already in use + positive
feedback from citizens and
providers
City health services &
Partners jointly working
on new AI service models
Data integration with analysis
offering preventative health-
care and coproduction advice
& alters
AI apps: friends circles, event
invitations, data ML analysis
Refined set analyses of
dynamic social groups
Wide range of AI-enabled
devices and apps
AI used to plan and draw
interdisciplinary links + links
to museum and business
Cross-service data exchange
and profiling of children at
risk
More closely linking City
supply & demand in
education + job connectors
AI-enabled foresighting
widespread
AI-based integrative and ML
data use and logistic planning
scenario planning
AI providing multiple city
scenarios
Partnership on clean energy
Widening of databases and
ML use in public planning
design and delivery
processes. .
Ethical evaluation part of
City strategy
Ethical issues embedded into
design and delivery
processes.
Elderly citizens involved in
testing, trialling and
promoting
Ethics embedded
Citizens/patients
involved
Citizens involved in design,
piloting and marketing, 70%
take-up
Sensitive feedback from
family and friends +
professionals
Citizen participative testbed,
including ethics feedback
Professional/user feedback at
design and trial stages
Parental panel involved +
partners evaluating ethics
Citizen/expert panel
evaluates ethics
Users, employers, providers
feedback avoiding sterile-
profiling
Citizens able to investigate
AI algorithms
3S and activist Officials
providing iterative feedback
on high eco-standards
Citizens able to re-
programme algorithms
City + business partners
enable ethical evaluation
City + business partners + 3S
enable ethical evaluation

Fig. 7. Examples of current AI use in Tampere’s local public services, emergent trends and how ethical evaluation are facilitated.

budgeting, while providing citizens with healthcare advice and support.
All I-9 says in the context of universal community healthcare but now
encouraging citizens to take more responsibility for their own wellbeing.
The one of informants raised up that the app exemplifies a City-
University-company partnership ‘pulling’ useful new services, con­
trasted to Nokia’s technology-push model, in short open innovation. The
main idea is City opens its data to attract new companies into market.
Referencing MyData, a City Development Manager (I-5) attributes part
of its success to its development by companies indigenous to the city. He
suggested that companies rooted elsewhere are less interested in local
cultures and issues, for example the ‘loneliness’ functions on the app are
particularly prized in Tampere.
During trials, a university Development Manager (I-17) told how EU
standards (virtue ethics), relational and (especially) role-based ethics
were cited, nuanced the algorithms and data weightings. As the Devel­
opment Manager (I-2) says, For each phase in life, we need to meet social
needs pointing to the app’s age-related functionalities. These comments
on MyData show AI-enabled public services as demand-pulled, paying
attention to local context and culture, referencing I-20 from the City
Council says, the particular granular segmentation of the City.
New AI-enabled public service models in Tampere are problem-
centred. Sometimes, as the City’s Director says, this enables private
companies to create more profitable services. As is the case for Finnish
Energy and the city’s renewables strategy, which uses AI, also the case
for companies participating in the food waste recycling arrangements.
He emphasises focusing on the problem, not the organisations. Social care
has numerous AI-enabled services. The Region’s Project Manager (1–4)
emphasises making all care apps disabled-friendly and the Hospital

8
T. Kinder et al.
Development Manager (I-9) says the ready acceptance of homecare ro­
bots is because they are customised with localised information and ac­
cents. These are examples, the University Development Manager (1–7)
of pushing air into a problem: ensuring that multiple voices in the
ecosystem contribute to problem solutions, supporting enjoying new
ideas, enjoying and getting a buzz from new relationships and challenges.
Careful iteration with service users, what the CEO (I-10) terms sub-
system linkages draws in the viewpoint of I-20’s granular segments to AI-
enabled new service models, particularly the ethical dimension. The City
Director’s view is that in Finnish culture people do not want to stand out as
heroic inventors, and instead feel more comfortable working in a collec­
tive. People want to experiment the University Development Manager (I-
7) says, so they are not controlled by outsiders: they have a say in the
service models used and accept whatever governances and structures are
appropriate to solving problems. The University Hospital’s One Heart
illustrates this approach. Clinical decisions, reference patient’s lifestyles
and involved numerous one-to-one remote diagnoses resulting in per­
sonalised patient pathways and feedback loops of patient activities and
health data. A similar iterative approach is taken by the hospital, the
Development Manager (I-9) says to building bones from stem-cells. AI-
based databanks gathered over seven-years, match bone and tissue.
Quite different iterations developing AI-based public services are
found in the Future Cities app widely used to consult citizen on future
town-centre development (I-3) and (I-6) detailed traffic management
arrangements. I-6 says the app inspires others [citizens] to think about
integrated what had been fragmented … scaling-up possibilities. AI-enabled
public services in Tampere are successful only because across gover­
nances. There is a shared belief that iterations give voice to others in the
ecosystem and that results service models that solve people’s problems
in ethical and socially-acceptable ways.
5.1.3. AI foresighted futures for ethical public services
For GEO (I-2) Tampere’s previous system of innovation was too
technological and he welcomes the new ecosystem’s focus on people,
their problems, and ethical solutions. Referring to innovation ecosystem
leadership; one of informants refers to good Mayors, willing to create good
atmosphere. Often driven by finding new solutions to problem addresses
by public services (health, care, education, transport) there are many
examples of Tampere’s AI-related new services most often the result of
cooperation between the City, university, companies and the 3S.
I-2 insists that AI-solutions in public services are most successful
when a wide range of data is accessible, user-groups carefully segmented
and ethical acceptability designed-in. As for the future, interviewees
emphasise data flowing from the IoT, many citing data from the inde­
pendent living enjoyed by most of Tampere’s senior citizens. The
Development Manager (TU Hospital) believes that AI-related public
service solutions will mostly come from indigenous companies, who can
be trusted to handle data and who spend the time iterating the ethical
voice of Tampere’s citizens.
Already Tampere’s schools and universities make extensive use of AI-
based systems to reconstruct historical periods, physical experiments
and current events (such as life in a refugee camp and surgery skills).
City Director notes that the emotional impact of such exposure on stu­
dents and teachers needs careful monitoring. Also, in using robotics and
cloud-based services, I-7 (the University’s Development Manager) notes
it is their ethical and social acceptability which should govern rates of
adoption, not technical capability.
5.2. Oulu
One of the world’s northern-most cities, Oulu’s 200,000 residents
accept its idiosyncrasies: trust is high (doors unlocked), as are living
standards. Technophilic focus on AI and near-field communications,
dominates the innovation ecosystem and pervades the activities of the
Council, companies, the 3S and schools and university. Successfully
becoming a centre for ethical AI is crucial to Oulu’s future, since
9
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
retaining skilled labour is a challenge, as is embedding modern ethics
into a Scandinavian heritage. Nokia’s contraction hit Oulu hard, its
innovation ecosystem now features indigenously owned SMEs linked to
global capital and product markets, often selling products developed to
meet local public service demands. Fig. 8 gives examples of AI use,
trends and ethical evaluation in Oulu, Finland.
5.2.1. Individual cognitions and service organising
There is an expectation in the Oulu, says the one of city leaders (I-18)
that local public services will improve as a result of using AI, and ac­
cording to the one informant (I-12) the city will flourish economically by
exporting these service apps and platforms. The city combines both pro­
duction [sales] and consumption [local services]. The one of city leaders
says the city’s brand integrity is based on ethical use of AI in a hostile
physical environment: Oulu’s partners and citizens know that AI created
in the city has been closely evaluated as ethically sound. I-18 says that
the city avoids unethical products, (he cites gambling, addictive gaming or
unacceptable business models).
As a fishing port, the lighthouse is an often-used metaphor in the city.
For I-16, the Nokia past shone light on what’s important, so too AI is part
of Oulu’s projected image and helps retain young people in the city. This
means loosening up governances - using whatever works best. For local
public service innovation, I-18 sees the local Council as an anchor player,
leading, sharing data, and creating multidisciplinary project teams to
address problems arising from life-as-lived. Invariably, these project
teams, I-13 notes, involve voluntary organisations as the voice of the
customer, along with others embedding ethical discourse into AI-enabled
innovations such as health and social care integration, one of the lead
projects in the city. Unusually, both the 3S and local Council trade
unions champion the adoption of AI and criticise slow adoption.
Problem-centred project teams using AI, the one of informants (I-17)
says, are self-organising, devolving not concentrating power, and
encouraged to trust informal governances.
The city views AI at its various levels is an important way of keeping
talented young people in the city and not migrating to the magnet city of
Helsinki. AI therefore features strongly in education curricula, in
retaining out of work people (especially database cleaning and man­
agement) and at the university. Local AI partnerships more often work
on trust than formal contracts. Reporting to informal gatherings, allows
project teams to explain how they deal with ethical issues, for example
during health and social care integration. These gatherings encourage
project teams to merge or mutually assist. Some of these discussions are
difficult, the one of city’s Director (I-16) gave the example of a project
deploying AI for migrant welfare identifying patterns of sexual assaults
and gender-related insults (i.e. by merging datasets and pattern
identification).
AI is central to Oulu’s agenda reforming and improving local public
services, with health and social care a priority. Encouraging AI across its
services, the City supports a wide range of problem-centred project
teams, anticipating new solutions and spin-off products that can be sold
internationally.
5.2.2. New service models and AI iterations
The one of informants (I-17) lists successfully internationalised
products that began life in public service problem-solving. The Bittium
phone uses AI-enabled security, Oura ring that gathers and transmit
health data, printed intelligence on flexible materials capable of health
data and movement communication, and specialist steels developed for
public buildings in a hostile environment. Some 3-billion users each day
use AI-based technologies developed in Oulu, he says and every
schoolchild in Oulu knows the stories of these AI-related innovations,
and many aspire to emulate them.
Oulu City sees integrated health and social care as the next area of AI-
related innovation that will solve local problems and create new inter­
national products. Already the Oura ring (https://ouraring.com) and
associated broaches or pendants gathers personal health data allowing
T. Kinder et al.
Fig. 8. Examples of current AI use in Oulu’s local public services, emergent trends and how ethical evaluation are facilitated.
Doctors to make preventative interventions from monitored data. Sister
technologies gather IoTs and position data that supports independent
living for the elderly and disabled linked to ambient care services.
Speaking for the voluntary sector, (I-13) urges the City to hasten the
pace of change: she views traditional Council structures as holding back
AI-related flexible service models, pointing out that high levels of trust
and social bonding are needed if siloed hierarchies are to be eliminated,
trust levels apparent in Oulu, but perhaps not in many cities. Her view is
that new de-formalised models work, solve problems and ought to be
extended, a view supported by the City’s trade unions. Having duty of
care responsibilities, the City is carefully extending the reach of de-
10
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
formalised services having also to note the views of medical and care
professionals. I-16, a City Director recalled how relational and role
ethics resulted in profound discussions during trialling, highlighting
many issues that did not arise at design stage. Similar potential change
and issues exist in services to children and families: the ethics of re­
sponsibility move more slowly than the technological potential.
Oulu’s public university and schools are AI-oriented as the one of
informants said (I-11). This means that children work on AI projects,
many targeting public service problems and using public service data,
processes that extend into university study. IoTs, he says, offers unlim­
ited opportunities for young people to create their own AI-related
T. Kinder et al.
problem-solving projects. 1–16, the one of city leaders notes the
extensive use of AI entrepreneurs in schools, telling stories of innovation
and hosting sessions on problem-solving and creativity. Oulu has low
unemployment, those few who are jobless are offered training, I-18 re­
ported in AI-connected areas such as database cleaning and
management.
With a fragile environment close to the Arctic circle, environmental
monitoring is important to Oulu, I-15 says. AI-based modelling helps
predict weather and integrates with the city’s traffic management sys­
tems also guiding decisions on housing location and general planning.
Oulu interviewees often use the phrase life-as-lived meaning the
everyday or typical: this is a pragmatic culture, a hostile environment
which breeds mutual interdependence, trust and practical problem-
solving. For example, I-11 reports that when the Youth Council raised
the issue of cycling safety, city opened its databanks on traffic, accidents,
journey times etc. as a way of inviting public discourse around
improvement plans. Voluntary organisations raised the quality of family
life as an issue and City leaders responded by inviting projects, many of
which deployed ML. One interesting result was increased involvement of
parents in schools, gaining greater understanding of modern pedagogy.
Other current project focus on coproduction opportunities in public
services, often with senior citizens involved. The one of city’s Director (I-
17) says recording capabilities showed that while every person can’t do
everything a vast reserve of unused talent was identified and is now used
more in delivering public services. Migrating from a Nokia-dependent
model to indigenously owned SMEs, the Head of Economic Develop­
ment says, has released previously untapped talent in the city offering
new ways for public services to solve life-as-lived issues.
Oulu enjoys a high standard of living and good quality public ser­
vices, many of which already benefit from AI-enabled innovations.
Citing the importance of open data and stimulating innovation, the one
of informants notes how city services are open to support and cooperate
with potential innovators. One City Director (I-15) believes that the
Mayor and Directors may hold too much power and like the city’s
voluntary organisations. He believes that citizens should have even
more control, especially over the ethical orientation of public service
uses of AI, believing that current structures are holding back the pace of
change. City leaders believe that service models that are ethically
acceptable in Oulu will be acceptable elsewhere, that Oulu can become
an ethical brand in AI-based public services, with products that can be
sold internationally.
5.2.3. AI foresighted futures for ethical public services
For Oulu’s leading figures, such as I-18 the Head of Economic
Development, AI-enabled, new public service solutions to life-as-lived
issues not only improve an ethically-acceptable range of local public
service solutions, but they are also a pool of potential new international
products on which the city can thrive. Ethical-AI as brand integrity (I-16)
therefore is central to the city’s social and economic future. Ethical-AI
for the Chamber of Commerce (I-14) is the new lighthouse, guiding the
city’s metaphoric ships.
Interviewees, such as a City Director (I-15) expressed delight that old
public services structures might be replaced by new models giving
decentralised power and authority to citizen and officials-led projects.
Speaking for voluntary organisations, I-13 says this is a new model of
leadership, with creativity arising from practical solutions: this she says
centres on citizens and their problems using technologies such as AI
creating a meaningful life. I-16, who combines the role of Pastor with
Director of Communications, shares this vision of future public services
celebrating spiritual wellbeing with economic success by placing ethics
at the centre of service models, advocating more coproduction. Para­
doxically then AI technology is central to Oulu’s future and in another
way peripheral, with people and their problems at the centre. In­
terviewees such as I-13 see health and social care integration driven by
citizens having a greater say and greater responsibility for their own
welfare, supported by technologies that allow experts to provide the best
11
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
possible guidance. The same can be said for education and environ­
mental public services.
Oulu is acutely aware of the fragility of human existence in a hostile
environment and the need for people to help one another and take
advantage of technological assistance. For the city’s HR Director, AI
marks the beginning of a new journey sharing and using new knowledge
to build a vibrant future for future generations.
6. Discussion and conclusions
Figs. 7 and 8 show that Tampere and Oulu have adopted what they
consider to be the ethical use of AI extensively in health, social care,
education and environment and planning local public services, and that
in each city expects to make greater use of ethical-AI in future. Here we
discuss the usefulness of our Fig. 5 framework, consider the foresighted
AI-enabled future of local public services in each city, answer our
research question and then summarise our contribution to theory and
policy before commenting on further research.
6.1. Interpreting the data using the framework
Fig. 5 conceptualises ethical-AI adoption as a learning process
featuring individual cognitions, that become distributed and embedded
into organised service models, being shaped as solutions to citizens’
problems in their particular context and culture. At each point in this
learning process (individual, organising, referencing culture and refer­
encing context) ethical evaluations based on virtues, relationships and
roles come into play, with a wider social evaluation before the new local
public service is accepted. Our analysis cross-references the social
learning framework with AI applications in the two cities, identifying
data to help answer the research questions. We highlight as especially
important those events or processes that connect learning and ethical
decisions, especially those distributing knowledge between sets of
participants.
AI outcomes appear most advanced in the areas of health and social
care and integration of the two. Both cities are for instance successfully
monitoring, analysing using ML and acting upon health-related data
(MyData and Oura ring examples) allowing in both cases, medical pro­
fessionals to monitor patients and to communicate preventative
healthcare advice. In social care too, using AI-based analysis of IoT
installed in for example independent living arrangements the cities
appear to be successfully deploying AI in advanced public service
models. In neither case are these innovations top-down or technology-
pushed. Instead, the innovations are the result of iterative design pro­
cesses, involving professionals and service users, often in cross-
governance and multidisciplinary teams, which throughout the design
and trial phases ethically evaluated AI use, avoiding for example prej­
udicial algorithms or datasets highlighted by O’Neil (2016) and Eubanks
(2017). in Bateson’s (1973 terms the rate of learning must equal or exceed
the rate of change appears yet to be achieved.
Importantly, the AI-related public service innovations are catalysed
by a citizen problem, rooted in the context and culture i.e. there is a
reference problem and proposed solution for a particular set of citizens
against which to judge the ethicality of the service innovation. Thus,
while some general (deontological) standards may be context-free, the
relational and role aspects of the ethical evaluations are context-
dependent, flowing in the oft-cited phrase from Bergson from life-as-
lived. Oulu’s intention as a centre for ethical AI is then to migrate these
local solutions into products that can be sold internationally. Shared
purpose is reflected in the willingness of citizens to participate in ethical
evaluation and trialling. Whereas Tampere constitutes more formal
projects compared with Oulu’s informality, both cities show an institu­
tional assemblage (Best’s 2018 phrase), including high levels of trust (Six
2005) to bring AI-related conceptualised solutions into fruition.
In summary, the framework appears a useful interpretative tool for
these cases, however its usefulness will only be proven over time, if the
T. Kinder et al.
AI-enabled public services innovations in Tampere and Oulu continue to
flourish-.
6.2. Foresighted AI-enabled futures
What then is the foresighted future of Oulu and Tampere from the
perspective of AI use and ethic decision-making? The cities are building
on a heritage of digitalised data and extensive databanks, in both cases
benefiting from large pools of AI-competent staff left from the Nokia
period and now working in locally owed SMEs, an open innovation
ecosystems and open data policy across the public sector. Our evidence
shows that learning between groups (explainability enhancing under­
standability) is key to conscious recognition of the need for ethical de­
cisions and informing decisions taken.
Interviewees appear familiar with the potential positives and nega­
tives (Figs. 3 and 4) aspirations for ethical-AI in Finnish services and
marketable products, in both cases part of the post-Nokia bounce back
supported by reservoirs of technically-competent staff and a tech­
nophilic culture. Self-confidently, in each city, context and culture
appear embedded in AI-related solutions as the right-side of Fig. 5
suggests moving beyond digitalisation into the AI paradigm.
Approaches to governance are pragmatic - Weick (1979) organising –
and not focused on organizational silos, driven by problem-solving. This
is helped by informal knowledge flows (I-13’s chit-chat and lots of
informal talks. Both cities constitute short-term projects as the means to
address problems and (perhaps more so in Oulu) this allows projects to
merge or join forces, as appropriate to the problem solution.
Overall, analysis of the cases using the Fig. 5 framework structure
shows that the idea of centres for ethical AI is a meaningful idea for Oulu
and Tampere, however these cities have a particular heritage of
competent staff, technophilia and open innovation ecosystems, that will
not be found in many cities, who too may aspire to become centres for
ethical AI.
6.3. Theoretical contribution
We have argued that AI is a configurable new general-purpose
technology (Fig. 2) at the heart of which is machine learning
including human decisions over algorithms and databases. Iterative
creation of algorithms relies on user and usability testing – user and
expert feedback: tending towards the open and structured big-data
Janssen and Kuk (2016) highlight. Research shows both negative and
positive impacts from AI (Figs. 3 and 4), posing important ethical issues.
Oulu and Tampere self-describe and act as ethical AI ecosystems. Using
the Fig. 5 framework, we identify successful and ethical uses of AI in
local public services (Fig. 8), developed in response to locally-identified
problems in life-as-lived revealing robust cross-governance and inter­
disciplinary innovation ecosystems.
The problems addressed by AI, their solutions and the ethical eval­
uations are all situated and localised in Tampere and Oulu’s contexts
and cultures. In no case was a top-down or off-the-shelf AI solution
adopted. Instead, feedback from high levels of user engagement in
design processes and ethical evaluations, and AI expert and local Council
professional expertise, helped shaped the AI-enabled new service solu­
tions. Active citizenship (Skinner, 1998) appears to be a pre-condition
for successful AI implementation, illustrating that despite the technical
complexity of AI it is possible for service users to grasp its processes and
outcomes. In his original exposition on the black box, Rosenberg
(1982:21) refers to complementary inputs that make an original invention
more useful. It appears that without user engagement, the development
of problem-solving ethical-AI is not possible. In this way the potential
negatives from deploying AI in local public services appear to be
avoided.
12
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
6.4. Policy implications
If local public service providers are to embrace AI, they should be
prepared to invest locally framing problems and solutions and engaging
their own citizens in ethical evaluations. Off-the-shelf AI-solutions may
preclude the advantages of AI and suffer the negatives.
Trust is an essential ingredient of successful AI use in local public
services. Trust as Six (2005; Kinder, Six, Stenvall, & Ally Memon, 2020)
notes has multiple dimensions. In this case, trust in technical partners
having access to personal data, trust between citizens and technical
partners and trust between sets of professionals. A further level of trust
in the integrity of the ethical judgement regarding virtue, relational and
role-based ethics.
6.5. Further research
Further empirical testing of the Fig. 5 framework is likely to result in
beneficial amendment. A study comparing the use of virtue, situated and
role-based ethics use in AI evaluation, may reveal deeper points on how
or the extent to which the approaches are appropriate and how best they
synthesise; we plan such a study using data from Beijing and Finnish
companies. Zednik (2019) calls for research on agent-relative data for
citizen-based AI evaluation in practice; we propose to gather and publish
available data. Further research may cumulate from different contexts
and cultures the substantive ethical decisions taken and may thereby
identify patterns appropriate to types of context and culture.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Adler, P. S. (2018). The Future of Critical Management Studies. In C. Warhust,
I. Grugulis, & W. Keep (Eds.), The Skills That Matter (pp. 242–260). Houndmills:
Macmillan Palgrave.
Ahlqvist, T., Halonen, M., Eerola, A., Kivisaari, S., Kohl, J., Koivisto, R., … Wessberg, N.
(2012). Systemic transformation, anticipatory culture, and knowledge spaces:
Constructing organisational capacities in roadmapping projects at VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8),
821–841.
Ahlqvist, T., Nieminen, M., Tuominen, A., et al. (2012). Towards strategic management
of complex systemic innovation environments: Integrating foresight, assessment,
system dynamic modelling and societal embedding into a coherent model. In
Towards Transformative Governance? Responses to Mission- Downloaded from evi.
sagepub.com at VTT on November 11, 2015 Nieminen and Hyytinen: Future-oriented
impact assessment oriented Innovation Policy Paradigms. Book of Abstracts. 2012 EU-Spri
Conference. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI.
Allam, Z., & Dhunny, Z. A. (2019). On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities.
Cities, 89, 80–91.
AMRC, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. (2019, Jan). Artificial intelligence in
healthcare. accessed 18 December 2019 and available at https://www.aomrc.org.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Artificial_intelligence_in_healthcare_0119.pdf.
Ananny, M. (2016). Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability,
and timeliness. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0162243915606523
Arthur, W. B. (2015). Complexity and the economy. Oxford: OUP.
Barcelona Declaration for the proper development and usage of AI in Europe. (2017).
Version-1. https://www.bdebate.org/ca/debat/artificial-intelligence-next-step-
evolution.
Bell. (2003/1973). The Coming of post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting.
NY: Basic Books.
Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy.
Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1–11.
Brindle, J. (2018). New dark age – Technology and the end of the future. London: Verso.
Brown, A., et al. (2019). Toward algorithmic accountability in public services. In CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems proceedings (CHI 2019), May 4–9,
2019. Scotland UK: Glasgow.
Bryman, E. (1988). Bell. In Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burrell, B. (2016). The Words We Live By: the Creeds, Mottoes and Pledges That Have Shaped
America. London: Free Press.
Carcia, D. (2018). Lethal artificial intelligence and change: The future of international
peace and security. International Studies Review, 20(2), 334–341.
T. Kinder et al.
Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical
opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A -
Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 1–8.
Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical
opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.
Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080
(accessed 041019).
Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2017). Artificial
Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: the US, EU and UK approach. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 27.
Chen, T., Guo, W., Gao, X., & Liang, Z. (2020). AI-based self-service technology in public
sector service delivery: User experiences and influencing factors. Information
Quarterly, 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101520
Cihon, P. (2019). Standards for AI governance: International standards to enable global
coordination in AI research & development. Future of Humanity Institute. University of
Oxford.
Clarke, R. (2019). Regulatory alternatives for AI. Computer Law and Security Review, 35
(4), 398–409.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.
De Mingo, A. C., & Martinez, A. C. (2018). Improving records management to promote
transparency and prevent corruption. International Journal of Information
Management, 38, 256–261.
Degeling, M., & Berendt, B. (2018). What is wrong about robocops as consultants? A
technology-centric critique of predictive policing. AI & SOCIETY, 33(3), 347–356.
Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications
of the ACM, 59(2), 58–62.
Doneda, D., & Almeida, V. (2016). What is algorithm governance? IEEE Internet
Computing, 1–2.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy,
11, 15–152.
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2018). Enslaving the algorithm: From a “right to an
explanation” to a “right to better decisions”? IEEE Security and Privacy, 16(3), 46–54.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Learning By Expanding. Cambridge: CUP.
Eubanks, V. (2017). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the
poor. NY: St Martin’s Press.
Fisher, A. (2014). The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge: CUP.
Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2016). What is data ethics? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 374,
20160360. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0360
Freeman, C. (1992). Innovation, changes of techno-economic paradigm and biological
analogies in economics. In The economics of Hope (pp. 120–142). London: Pinter.
Friedman Sam, & Giselinde, Kuipers. (2005). The divisive power of humour: Comedy,
taste and symbolic boundaries. Cultural sociology, 7(2), 179–195.
Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector.
Information Quarterly, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.003
Gasser, U., & Almeida, V. A. F. (2017). A layered model for AI governance. IEEE Internet
Computing, 21(6), 58–62.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1985). Eyewitness
Memory Enhancement in the Police Interview: Cognitive Retrieval Mnemonics
Versus Hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 385–401.
GDPR, EU. (2020). Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the
council. on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data
and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data
Protection Regulation). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?ur
i=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN.
Introduction. In Gitelman, L., Jackson, V., & Gitelman, L. (Eds.), Raw data is an oxymoron,
(2013). MA: MIT Press.
Gupta, K. P. (2019). Artificial intelligence for governance in India: Prioritizing the
challenges using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Recent
Technology and Engineering, 8(2), 3756–3762.
Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy
coordination. International Organisation, 46(1), 1–35.
Havas, A., Schartinger, D., & Weber, M. (2010). The impact of foresight on innovation
policy making: recent experiences and future perspectives. Res. Eval., 19(2), 91–104.
Social Self Organization, Understanding. Complex Systems, (2012)). Heidelberg: Springer
Verlag.
Hickok, M. (2020). Lessons learned from AI ethics principles for future actions (pp. 1–7). AI
and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00008-1.
Ho, C. W. L., Soon, D., Caals, K., & Kapur, J. (2019). Governance of automated image
analysis and artificial intelligence analytics in healthcare. Clinical Radiology, 74(5),
329–337.
Huang, Y. (2013). Confucius: A guide for the perplexed. London: Bloomsbury.
Huang, Y., & Justice as a Virtue. (2019). Justice according to virtues and / or justice of
virtues. In M. J. Sandel, & P. J. D’Ambrosio (Eds.), Encountering China –Michael
Sandel and Chinese Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ISO 13482. (2014). Robots and Robotic Devices: Safety Requiremnets for Personal Care
Robots. Paris: ISO.
Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). Big and open linked data (BOLD) in research, policy, and
practice. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1–2), 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1124005
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: The global landscape of
ethics guidelines. available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.11668.pdf.
Kankanhalli, A., Charalabidis, Y., & Mellouli, S. (2019). IoT and AI for smart government:
A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 304–309.
Kilbertus, Niki, Gascon, Adria, Kusner, Matt, Veale, Michael, Gum- madi, Krishna, &
Weller, Adrian (2018). Blind justice: Fairness with encrypted sensitive attributes. In
Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018).
13
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
Kinder, T. (2012). Learning, innovation and performance in post-new public
management of locally delivered public services. Public Management Review, 14(3),
403–428.
Kinder, T., Six, F., Stenvall, J., & Ally Memon, A. (2020). Governance as legitimacy: are
ecosystems replacing networks? forthcoming Public Management Review. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1786149
Kroll, J. A. (2018). The fallacy of inscrutability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A - Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376, 2133.
Kroll, J. A. (2019). Data science data governance [AI ethics]. IEEE Security and Privacy,
16(6), 61–70.
Kromidha, E., & Côrdoba-Pachón, J.-R. (2017). Discursive institutionalism for
reconciling change and stability in digital innovation public sector projects for
development. Government Information Quarterly, 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2016.11.004
Latonero, M. (2019). Governing Artificial Intelligence. Data&Society.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: CUP.
Leslie, D. (2019). Understanding Artificial Intelligence ethics and society. London: The Alan
Turing Institute. https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-programmes/publ
ic-policy.
Lysaght, T., Lim, H. Y., Xafis, V., & Ngiam, K. Y. (2019). AI-assisted decision-making in
healthcare. Asian Bioethics Review. https://doi.org.libproxy.tuni.fi/10.1007/s41649-
019-00096-0.
Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1989). Research Foresight: Priority Setting in Science. New York:
Pinter Publishers.
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & Hinton, G. E. (2018). Parallel distributed processing.
CA: Stanford University Press.
McNamara, A., Smith, J., & Murphy-Hill, E. (2018). Does ACM’s code of ethics change
ethical decision making in software development?. https://doi.org/10.1145/323602
4.3264833.
Mergel, I., Dickinson, H., Stenvall, J., & Gasco, M. (2023). Implementing AI in the public
sector. Public Management Review, 1–13.
Meupetc, N., & Montanez, G. D. (2020). Virtue as a framework for the design and use of
artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 63(2), 195–204.
Mikalef, P., Fjortoft, S. O., & Torvatn, H. Y. (2018). Artificial Intelligence in the Public
Sector: A study of challenges and opportunities for Norwegian Municipalities.
Mikhaylov, S. J., Esteve, M., & Campion, A. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the public
sector: Opportunities and challenges of cross-sector collaboration. Philosophical
Transactions Research Society, 376, xx.
Miles, D. A., & Sparks, W. (2013). Examining social media and higher education: An
empirical study on rate my professors.com and its impact on college students. Int. J.
Econ. Manag. Soc. Sci., 2(7), 513–524.
Moore, M. (2018). Democracy hacked – Political turmoil and information warfare in the
digital age. London: OneWorld.
Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and Human-Computer
Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Negtagaal, R. (2020). The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public
employees’ procedural justice. Government Information Quarterly, 36. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101536
O’Neil, K. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequalities and
threatens democracy. London: Penguin.
Otero, B. G. (2019). Evaluating the EC private data sharing principles setting a mantra
for artificial intelligence nirvana? Journal of Intellectual Property, Information
Technology and E-Commerce Law, 10(1), 66–84.
Pencheva, I., Esteve, M., & Mikhaylov, S. J. (2018). Big data and AI – A transformational
shift for government: So, what next for research? Public Policy and Administration.
XXX.
Pesenti, J. (2017). Growing the Artificial Intelligence industry in the. UK. https://assets.pub
lishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
652097/Growing_the_artificial_intelligence_industry_in_the_UK.
Radnor, Z., Osborne, S. P., Kinder, T., & Baranova, P. (2014). Operationalizing co-
production in public services delivery: The contribution of service blueprinting.
Public Management Review, 16(3), 402–423.
Roojen, Mark van (forthcoming). ‘Praising and Blaming.’ Speech Actions. Ed. Marina
Sbasa and Ken Turner. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box - technology and economics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: AI and the problem of control. London: Penguin.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (2002). Defining the non-profit sector – a cross national
analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Shah, H. (2018). Algorithmic accountability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A - Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376, 1–6.
Shin, D. H. (2019). Socio-technical design of algorithms: Fairness, accountability, and
transparency. In 30th European conference of the International Telecommunications
Society (ITS): “Towards a Connected and Automated Society, Helsinki, Finland, 16th-
19th June 2019”. Helsinki: International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
Six, F. (2005). The Trouble with Trust – The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust Building.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge: CUP.
Stanfill, M. H., & Marc, D. T. (2019). Health information management: Implications of
artificial intelligence on healthcare data and information management. Yearbook of
Medical Informatics, 28(1), 56–64.
Steels, L., & Lopez, M. (2018). The Barcelona declaration for the proper development and
usage of artificial intelligence in Europe. AI Communications, 31(6), 485–494.
Stenvall, J., Kinder, T., & Kuoppakangas, P. (2018). Unlearning and public services – a
case study with Vygotskian approach. J. Adult Contin. Educ., 24(2), 188–207.
T. Kinder et al.
Stilgoe, J. (2018). Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving
cars. Social Studies of Science (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 48(1), 25–56.
Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the
public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly, 36
(2), 368–383.
Tännsjö, T. (2002). Understanding ethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A
literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2019.01.001
Veale, M., Binns, R., & Edwards, L. (2018). Algorithms that remember: Model inversion
attacks and data protection law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A -
Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 1–15.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use:
development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.
Villaronga, E. F. (2019). Robots, Standards and the Law, Computer Law and Security Review.
Villar, Jesús, et al. (2020). Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress
syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Respiratory
Medicine, 8(3), 267–276.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934 (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky. In R. W. Rieber, &
A. S. Carton (Eds.), 1. Problems of general psychology. NY: Plenum.
Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organising. New York: Random House.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Mind as Action. Oxford: OUP.
Winter, J. S., & Davidson, E. (2019). Governance of artificial intelligence and personal
health information. Digital Policy Regulation and Governance, 21(3), 280–290.
Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for
public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100.
Xafis, V., Schaefer, G. O., Labude, M. K., Brassington, I., Ballantyne, A., Lim, H. Y., …
Tai, E. S. (2019). An ethics framework for big data in health and research. Asian
Bioethics Review, 11, 3.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study. research (Sage.
Young, M. M., Bullock, J. B., & Lecy, J. D. (2019). Artificial discretion as a tool of
governance: A framework for understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on
public administration. Perspective on Public Management and Governance, 301-313
(October).
Zalnieriute, M., Moses, L. B., & Williams, G. (2019). The Rule of Law and Automation of
Government Decision-making. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Law
Research Series. available at (accessed (211219) http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/
research/faculty-publications.
14
Government Information Quarterly 40 (2023) 101865
Zednik, C. (2019). Solving the black box problem: A normative framework for
explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy and Technology, 27.
Kinder T is a Visiting Professor at Tampere University and the University of Science and
Technology, Beijing having previous been MBA Director at the University of Edinburgh.
He researches learning and innovation.
Stenvall J is professor in public management at Tampere University, Finland. He has
published widely in the area of learning and innovation, change management, trust,
organizational reforms, service innovations, and the use of information technology in
organisations. Jari Stenvall was appointed by the Finnish Government as a member of the
Independent Investigation Team to assess measures taken due to the COVID-19 pandemic
in Finland. He is a member of the national team with the purpose to develop Finnish public
management.
Emmi Koskimies (MSc Admin.) is a Doctoral Researcher in the field of administrative
science at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. Koski­
mies’ doctoral research and current research interests focus on artificial intelligence in
public service provisioning, mutuality in multi-agent collaboration and ethics of AI-
powered public service innovation processes. She has worked on projects such as Ethical
AI for the Governance of the Society ETAIROS - that focuses on the ethical sustainability of
applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) and associated technologies to society.
Webb H is a Assistant Professor in Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai Men’s College.
where she teaches strategy, entrepreneurship, marketing and other international business
courses. She received her PhD in Management and MSc in International Business and
Emerging Markets (IBEM) from The University of Edinburgh, and her BA in History from
the University of Washington. Her research focuses on aspects of strategy, innovation,
sustainability and entrepreneurship.
Janenova S is a Teaching Fellow at The University of Birmingham, UK. Dr. Janenova
received a PhD degree in Social Policy from the University of Edinburgh and MA degree in
Sociology from the University of Durham. Dr. Janenova’s research interests are concerned
with public sector and civil service reforms in Central Asia, including authoritarianism,
patronage, corruption, open government, and public service innovations.