Inclusive deliberation and action in emerging RRI practices: the case of neuroimaging in security management

Figures & data

Table 1. Designs of the focus groups and the dialogue.

Designs
Focus group
Focus groups lasted for two hours and were facilitated by the first author. We aimed for five to eight participants per focus group: two focus groups consisted of five participants and one of three because of non-shows and late withdrawals (n = 13; 12 male, 1 female, which is representative for Dutch security professionals). Nevertheless, the smallest focus group resembled the other two with respect to input, appraisals and priorities. Firstly, an inventory of trends within security management was made. After a brief explanation about neuroimaging to get acquainted with the technology, participants were asked to draw their associations with neuroimaging. We subsequently discussed potential applications of neuroimaging more specifically. The facilitator inventoried the potential applications and asked whether the mentioned application was desirable and related to trends in security management. Potential applications were clustered and prioritized by the participants. For the two prioritized applications, two parallel groups explored which knowledge they deemed necessary to develop the application and in what context they envisioned the application. Finally, we discussed opportunities, barriers and concerns with respect to the two applications.
Dialogue
The dialogue session was facilitated by the first two authors and took three hours. Imaginaries relating to the recognition of intentions and the prediction of behaviour to avoid the realisation of dangerous situations, carry in them the ability to spot ‘deviant’ behaviour (as opposed to ‘normal’ behaviour). However, ‘deviant behaviour’ as a term is open to interpretative flexibility. We used this in our first two exercises to construct the deliberation. We let the participants discuss on nine different conceptualizations of deviant behaviour from the perspective of security management and from neuroscience, with all participants taking each perspective in turn. Different lenses, for example, deviating from cultural norm or deviating from a societal average, yield different perceptions of what constitutes deviant behaviour. We asked participants to illustrate these different conceptualizations of deviant behaviour with examples of possibilities these ‘lenses’ provide. For example, what kind of intentions will be put into view in the practice of Security Management when reasoning from this particular conceptualization of ‘deviant behaviour’, or what kind of technical question would arise for neuroscience to resolve? The second exercise, after the break, consisted of a value game. We divided the group in two subgroups and gave each sub group a set of large cards, each card containing an (ethical) value. The sub groups were given the assignment to consider the application of neuroimaging (direct or indirect) in security management and whether the words on the cards would plea in favour or against this application (or both). They were free to interpret the value cards in the way they wanted to as a group. At the end they were asked to choose a position (and thus weigh the different sets of values).

Table 2. Focus group participants and feedback interviewees by area(s) of expertise.

	Area of expertise
	Physical security	Data security	Compliance management	Employment screening	Criminal investigation	Crisis management
FG1-P1						X
FG1-P2	X			X	X	X
FG1-P3	X		X	X	X	X
FG2-P1	X	X	X	X	X	X
FG2-P2	X	X	X	X	X	X
FG2-P3	X			X
FG2-P4						X
FG2-P5	X				X
FG3-P1	X			X
FG3-P2	X	X	X	X	X	X
FG3-P3	X	X		X		X
FG3-P4	X	X	X	X	X	X
FG3-P5			X		X
FB-P1	X	X	X	X	X	X
FB-P2*	X	X	X	X	X	X
FB-P3*		X

Note: Based on three key informant interviews we devised a classification of security management. Subsequently, members of the regional division of ASIS International were cross-referenced for the six arisen categories. FG1, FG2 and FG3 indicate focus group rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. FB indicates a feedback interview. *These participants were not member of the regional division of ASIS International.

Table 3. Participants of the dialogue by expertise.

	Stakeholder group
	Neuroscience	Social psychology	Security management professional	Intermediary technology developer	Applied ethics
D-P1	X
D-P2	X
D-P3	X
D-P4	(x)	X
D-P5			X
D-P6			X
D-P7			X
D-P8			X
D-P9		(x)		X
D-P10	(x)			X
D-P11					X

X = primary expertise; (x) = secondary expertise.