Mutuality in AI-enabled new public service solutions

References

• AI HLEG,. 2019. “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence.” European Commission, April.
   Google Scholar
• Ananny, M. 2016. “Toward an Ethics of Algorithms: Convening, Observation, Probability, and Timeliness.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (1): 93–117. doi:10.1177/0162243915606523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Androutsopoulou, A., N. Karacapilidis, E. Loukis, and Y. Charalabidis. 2019. “Transforming the Communication Between Citizens and Government Through AI-Guided Chatbots.” Government Information Quarterly 36 (2): 358–367. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, M., and D. Baum. 2017. “A Model of Pathways to Artificial Superintelligence Catastrophe for Risk and Decision Analysis.” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 29 (2): 397–414. doi:10.1080/0952813X.2016.1186228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research Critique. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bietti, E. 2021. From Ethics Washing to Ethics Bashing: A Moral Philosophy View on Tech Ethics.” Journal of Social Computing 2 (3): 266–283. doi: 10.23919/JSC.2021.0031.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. 1964. Social Exchange Theory. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Brundage, M., S. Avin, J Clark, H. Toner, P. Eckersley, B. Garfinkel, and D. Amodei. 2018. The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.07228.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. J., and P. P. Kime 2011. Just an Artefact: Why Machines are Perceived as Moral Agents. In Proceedings of the Twenty Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 16-22, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. J., M. E. Diamanthis, and T. D. Grant. 2017. “Of, for and the People: The Legal Lacuna of Synthetic Persons.” Artificial Intelligence Law 25 (3): 273–291. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. J. 2017a. “The Meaning of the EPSRC Principles of Robotics.” Connection Science 29 (2): 130–136. doi:10.1080/09540091.2017.1313817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. J. 2018. “Patiency is Not a Virtue: The Design of Intelligent Systems and Systems of Ethics.” Ethics and Information Technology 20 (1): 15–26. doi:10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. J., and A. Theodorou. 2019. ”How Society Can Maintain Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence.” In Human-Centered Digitalisation and Services, edited by M. Toivonen and E. Saari, 305–323.Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. J. 2019. ”The Past Decade and Future of AI’s Impact on Society, in Towards a New Enlightenment?” In A Transcendent Decade. Vol. 11. Turner, Madrid.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M., and P. Himanen. 2002. The Information Society and the Welfare State – The Finnish Model. Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Cath, C., S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, M. Taddeo, and L Floridi. 2017. “Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: The US, EU and UK Approach.” Science, Engineering and Ethics. 24 (2): 505–528. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2000. “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 509–535. Vol. 2. California, CA: Thousand Oaks.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2006.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2008. “The Legacy of Anselm Strauss in Constructivist Grounded Theory.“ In Studies in Symbolic Interaction, edited by Denzin, Norman K., Salvo, James V., Washington, M, 127–141. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Chun, A. H. W. 2008. “An AI Framework for the Automatic Assessment of E-Government Forms.” AI Magazine 29 (1): 52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coeckelbergh, M. 2020. AI Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, M., R. Fu, and L. Yin. 2017.” Artificial Intelligence: Healthcare’s New Nervous System. Edited by Accenture.” Accessed January 7 2021. https://www.accenture.com/t20170418T023052Z__w__/au-en/_acnmedia/PDF-49/Accenture-Health-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dabos, G. E., and D. M. Rousseau. 2004. “Mutuality and Reciprocity in the Psychological Contracts of Employees and Employers.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (1): 52. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, H. 2016. Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Bruijn, H. 2007. Managing Performance in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Sousa, W. G., E. R. P. de Melo, P. H. D. S. Bermejo, R. A. S. Farias, and A. O. Gomes. 2019. “How and Where is Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector Going? a Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Government Information Quarterly 36 (4): 101392. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, G., and D. N. Den Hartog. 2006. “Measuring Trust Inside Organisations.” Personnel Review 35 (5): 557–588. doi:10.1108/00483480610682299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, G. 2011. “Going Back to the Source: Why Do People Trust Each Other?” Journal of Trust Research 1 (2): 215–222. doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.603514.
   Google Scholar
• Dignum, V. 2019. Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Switzerland, Cham: Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Drigotas, S. M., C. E. Rusbult, and J. Verette. 1999. “Level of Commitment, Mutuality of Commitment, and Couple Well‐being.” Personal Relationships 6 (3): 389–409. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00199.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Easterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe, and A. Lowe. 1991. Management Research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, L., and M. Veale. 2018. “Enslaving the Algorithm: From a “Right to an Explanation” to a “Right to Better Decisions?” IEEE Security & Privacy 16 (3): 46–54. doi:10.1109/MSP.2018.2701152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etikan, I., S. A. Musa, and R. S. Alkassim. 2016. “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling.” American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5 (1): 1–4. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
   Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. 2017. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the Poor. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fina, S., B. Heider, M. Mattila, P. Rautiainen, M.-W. Sihvola, and K. Vatanen. 2021. Unequal Finland. Regional socio-economic disparities in Finland. Europa: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung – Politics for Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, A. 1988. The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fjeld, J., N. Achten, H. Hilligoss, A. Nagy, and M. Srikumar. 2020. Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI. Berkman Klein Centre Research Publication, (2020-1). doi:10.2139/ssrn.3518482.
   Google Scholar
• Floridi, L. 1999. “Information Ethics: On the Philosophical Foundation of Computer Ethics.” Ethics and Information Technology 1 (1): 33–52. doi:10.1023/A:1010018611096.
   Google Scholar
• Floridi, L., and M. Taddeo. 2016. “What is Data Ethics?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 374 (2083): 20160360. doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0360.
   Google Scholar
• Floridi, L., J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, and E. Vayena. 2018. “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations.” Minds and Machines 28 (4): 689–707. doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., and H. Nissenbaum. 1996. “Bias in Computer systems.” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 14 (3): 330–347. doi:10.1145/230538.230561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasser, U., and V. A. Almeida. 2017. “A Layered Model for AI Governance.” IEEE Internet Computing 21 (6): 58–62. doi:10.1109/MIC.2017.4180835.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillath, O., T. Ai, M. S. Branicky, S. Keshmiri, R. B. Davison, and R. Spaulding. 2021. “Attachment and Trust in Artificial Intelligence.” Computers in Human Behavior 115: 106607. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, D., A. L. Hoffmann, and L. Stark. 2019. “Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A Critical Assessment of the Movementfor Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning” In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Grand Wailea, Maui.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, S., S. Kamboj, and S. Bag. 2021. “Role of Risks in the Development of Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Healthcare Domain.” Information Systems Frontiers 1–18. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10796-021-10174-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas, P. M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organisation 46 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagendorff, T. 2020. “The Computational Origin of Representation.” Minds and Machines 31: 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardin, R. 2002. “The Crippled Epistemology of Extremism.” In Political Rationality and Extremism, edited by Breton, 3–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henson, R. H. 1997. “Analysis of the Concept of Mutuality.” Image–The Journal of Nursing Scholarship 29 (1): 77–81. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01144.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hickok, M. 2020. “Lessons Learned from AI Ethics Principles for Future Actions.” AI and Ethics 1 (1): 41–47. doi:10.1007/s43681-020-00008-1.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, G. and M. Mehta, eds. 2013. Nanotechnology: “Risk, Ethics and Law”. London, Sterling VA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jobin, A., M. Ienca, and E. Vayena. 2019. “The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines.” Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (9): 389–399. doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. G. 1985. Computer Ethics. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, J. V., and Stone Centre for Developmental Services and Studies. 1986. The Meaning of Mutuality. Vol. 23. Wellesley, Mass: Stone Centre for Developmental Services and Studies, Wellesley College.
   Google Scholar
• Kankanhalli, A., Y. Charalabidis, and S. Mellouli. 2019. “LoT and AI for Smart Government: A Research Agenda.” Government Information Quarterly 36 (2): 304–309. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, U. 2014. “Moral Judgment is Not Based on a Dichotomy Between Emotion and Cognition: Commentary on Bazerman et al. (2011).” Emotion Review 6 (1): 86. doi:10.1177/1754073913495299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, T., R. Gutknecht, R. Lindner, E. Schirrmeister, L. Meißner, and U. Schmoch 2021. “Trust, Trustworthiness and Technology Governance.” TIGTech research and consultation. TIGTech Anchor Document, Fraunhofer.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, T. 2000. “A Sociotechnical Approach to the Innovation of a Network Technology in the Public Sector – The Introduction of Smart Homes in West Lothian.” European Journal of Innovation Management 3 (2): 72–90. doi:10.1108/14601060010322284.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, T. 2002. “Good Practice in Best Practice.” Science & Public Policy 29 (3): 1–14. doi:10.3152/147154302781781010.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, T. 2010. “E-Government Service Innovation in the Scottish Criminal Justice Information System.” Financial Accountability & Management 26 (1): 21–24. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2009.00489.x.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, T. 2012. “Learning, Innovation and Performance in Post-New Public Management of Locally Delivered Public Services.” Public Management Review 14 (3): 403–428. doi:10.1080/14719037.2011.637408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinder T., Six F., Stenvall J. and Memon A. 2022. Governanceas-legitimacy: are ecosystems replacing networks?, Public Management Review 24 (1): 8–33. doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1786149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreps, G. L., and L. Neuhauser. 2013. “Artificial Intelligence and Immediacy: Designing Health Communication to Personally Engage Consumers and Providers.” Patient Education and Counseling 92 (2): 205–210. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.04.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuziemski, M., and G. Misuraca. 2020. “AI Governance in the Public Sector: Three Tales from the Frontiers of Automated Decision-Making in Democratic Settings.” Telecommunications Policy 44 (6): 101976. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laitinen, I., J. Stenvall, and T. Kinder. 2017. ”Co-Design and Action Learning in Local Public Services.” Journal of Adult & Continuing Education 1: 26, August. doi:10.1177/1477971417725344.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, P. 2014. “Introduction to robot ethics.” In Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, edited by Lin, P., K. Abney, and G. A. Bekey. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, A., J. Smith, and E. Murphy-Hill. 2018. “Does ACM’s Code of Ethics Change Ethical Decision Making in Software Development?” In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 729–733. doi:10.1145/3236024.3264833.
   Google Scholar
• MEAE (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment). 2017. “Finland’s Age of Artificial Intelligence Turning Finland into a Leading Country in the Application of Artificial Intelligence. Objective and Recommendations for Measures.” Accessed 12 January 2021. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/160391/TEMrap_47_2017_verkkojulkaisu.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
   Google Scholar
• Mikalef, P., K. Lemmer, C. Schaefer, M. Ylinen, S. O. Fjørtoft, H. Y. Torvatn, and B. Niehaves. 2021. “Enabling AI Capabilities in Government Agencies: A Study of Determinants for European Municipalities.” Government Information Quarterly 101596. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101596.
   Google Scholar
• Mittelstadt, B., C. Russell, and S. Wachter. 2019. Explaining Explanations in AI.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, January 29-31, 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, 279–288.
   Google Scholar
• Möllering, G. 2006. Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Moor, J. H. 1985. “What is Computer Ethics?” Metaphilosophy 16 (4): 266–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemitz, P. 2018. “Constitutional Democracy and Technology in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376: 20180089. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nietzsche, F. W. 1997. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. New York, NY: Mineola.
   Google Scholar
• Nooteboom, B. 2002. Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures and Figures. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, K. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequalities and Threatens Democracy. London: Penguin
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P. 2006. ”The New Public Governance?” Public Management Review 8 (3): 377–387. doi:10.1080/14719030600853022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., Z. Radnor, T. Kinder, and I. Vidal. 2015. “The Service Framework: A Public Service-Dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services.” British Journal of Management 26 (3): 424–438. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12094.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pencheva, I., M. Esteve, and S. J. Mikhaylov. 2018. “Big Data and AI – A Transformational Shift for Government: So, What Next for Research?” Public Policy and Administration 35 (1): 24–44. doi:10.1177/0952076718780537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radnor, Z., and S. P. Osborne. T. Kinder, and P. Baranova. 2014. “Operationalizing Co-Production in Public Services Delivery: The Contribution of Service Blueprinting.” Public Management Review 16 (3): 402–423. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.848923.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahwan, I. 2018. “Society-In-The-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract.” Ethics and Information Technology 20 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, H., J. Cowls, J. Morley, M. Taddeo, V. Wang, and L. Floridi. 2020. “The Chinese Approach to Artificial Intelligence: An Analysis of Policy, Ethics, and Regulation.” AI & Society 1–19. doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the Black Box - Technology and Economics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, F. 2018. “Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence.” Journal of International Affairs 72 (1): 127–134.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, P., and S. Tuurnas. 2021. “Conflicts Fostering Understanding of Value Co-Creation and Service Systems Transformation in Complex Public Service Systems.” Public Management Review 23 (2): 254–275. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1679231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” The American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–77. doi:10.1037110003/066X.55.1.68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sainsbury, R. M. 1995. Paradoxes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• SAIP. 2019. “Leading the Way into the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Final Report of Finland’s Artificial IntelligenceProgramme 2019.” Steering group and secretariat of the Artificial Intelligence Program. Publications of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 2019: 41 Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Schaefer, C., K. Lemmer, K. Samy Kret, M. Ylinen, P. Mikalef, and B. Niehaves 2021. “Truth or Dare?–How Can We Influence the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Municipalities?.” In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2347.
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. 1975. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Illinois: Dryden.
   Google Scholar
• Schummer, J. and D. Baird, eds. 2006. Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Six, F. E. 2005. The Trouble with Trust – The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust Building. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Spieth, P., D. Schneckenberg, and J. E. Ricart. 2014. “Business Model Innovation–State of the Art and Future Challenges for the Field.” R&D Management 44 (3): 237–247. doi:10.1111/radm.12071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• State of AI in Finland. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe, A. L. 1990. Information and Organisations. California, LA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, P., R. Brooks, E. Brynjolfsson, R. Calo, O. Etzioni, G. Hager, and A. Teller. 2016. “Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030. One-Hundred-Year Study on Artificial Intelligence: Report of the 2015-2016 Study Panel.” Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Tännsjö, T. 2002. Understanding Ethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thibaut, J. W., and H. H. Kelley. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, E. P. 1971. The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & present 50: 76–136.
   Google Scholar
• Trocin, C., P. Mikalef, Z. Papamitsiou, and K. Conboy. 2021. “Responsible AI for Digital Health: A Synthesis and a Research Agenda.” Information Systems Frontiers 1–19. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10796-021-10146-4.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tronick, E. D., H. Als, and T. B. Brazelton. 1977. “Mutuality in Mother-Infant Interaction.” The Journal of Communication 27 (2): 74–79. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01829.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulnicane, I., W. Knight, T. Leach, B. C. Stahl, and W. G. Wanjiku. 2020. “Framing Governance for a Contested Emerging Technology: Insights from AI Policy.” Policy and Society 1–20. doi:10.1080/14494035.2020.1855800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1934. The Collected Works of LS Vygotsky: Vol. 1, Problems of General Psychology. edited by R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton. New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Wartofsky, M. 1979. Models, Representation and Scientific Understanding. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, H. J. 2014. “Tutorial: Big Data Analytics: Concepts, Technologies, and Applications.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34 (65). doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03465.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weibel, A., and F. E. Six. 2013. “Trust and Control: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation.” In Handbook of Advances in Trust Research, edited by R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer, 57–81. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Weibel, A., D. N. Den Hartog, N. Gillespie, R. Searle, F. E. Six, and D. Skinner. 2016. “How Do Controls Impact Employee Trust in the Employer?” Human Resource Management 55 (3): 437–462. doi:10.1002/hrm.21733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Vol. 3. CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Winfield, A. F., and M. Jirotka. 2018. “Ethical Governance is Essential to Building Trust in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Systems.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376 (2133): 20180085. doi:10.1098/rsta.2018.0085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirtz, B. W., and W. M. Müller. 2019. “An Integrated Artificial Intelligence Framework for Public Management.” Public Management Review 21 (7): 1076–1100. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeoman, R. 2019. Ethics, Meaningfulness, and Mutuality. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research Design and Methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar