Prometheus Latest Issues

Below you can find the table of contents for the latest issues of Prometheus. All articles are Open Access and links to each article are provided below. The journal is hosted on Science Open and can be found here to read online. 

Co-Chairs of Editorial Executive

Anna Lawson (Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds, UK)

Angharad Beckett (Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds, UK)

Executive Editors

David Abbott (Norah Fry Centre for Disability Studies, University of Bristol, UK)

Theresia Degener (Evangelische Hochschule Rheinland-Westfalen-Lippe, Germany)

Amita Dhanda (Nalsar University of Law, India)

Hannah Morgan (Centre for Disability Research, Lancaster University, UK)

Gerard Quinn (University of Leeds, UK and Lund University, Sweden)

Chrissie Rogers (Tizard Centre, University of Kent, UK)

Michael Stein (Harvard Law School Project on Disability, Harvard University, USA)

Anna Arnstein-Kerslake (University of Melbourne)

Andrew Azzopardi (University of Malta)

Julia Bahner (Lund University)

Dikmen Bezmez (Koç University)

Peter Blanck (Syracuse University)

Nicola Burns (University of Glasgow)

Bronagh Byrne (Queens University Belfast)

Tom Campbell (University of Leeds)

Paula Campos Pinto (University of Lisbon)

Heng-hao Chang (National Taipei University)

Tsitsi Chataika (University of Zimbabwe)

Luke Clements (University of Leeds)

Beverley Clough (University of Leeds)

Pedro Encarnação (Católica Lisbon School of Business and Economics)

Deborah Fenney (Kings Fund)

Eilionoir Flynn (NUI Galway)

Debbie Foster (Cardiff University)

Frederic Fovet (Royal Roads University)

Anita Ghai (Ambedkar University) 

Barbara Gibson (University of Toronto)

Dan Goodley (University of Sheffield)

Miro Griffiths (University of Leeds)

Rosie Harding (University of Birmingham)

Paul Harpur (University of Queensland)

Chris Hatton (Lancaster University)

Katharina Heyer (University of Hawaii)

Roni Holler (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Esther Ignagni (Ryerson University)

Jo Ingold (University of Leeds)

Sanjay Jain (ILS Law College, Pune)

Kelly Johnson (University of New South Wales)

Emily Kakoullis (Cardiff University)

Arlene Kanter (Syracuse University)

Hisayo Katsui (Helsinki University)

Rosemary Kayess (University of New South Wales)

Amanda Keeling (University of Leeds)

Patrick Kermit (Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Rebecca Lawthom (Manchester Metropolitan University)

Oliver Lewis (University of Leeds & Doughty Street Chambers)

Kirsty Liddiard (University of Sheffield)

Kelly Loper (Hong Kong University)

Ravi Malhotra (University of Ottawa)

Janice McLaughlin (Newcastle University)

David T. Mitchell (The George Washington University)

Sagit Mor (University of Haifa)

Simon Ng (Hong Kong University)

Nagase Osamu (Ritsumeikan University) 

Mark Priestley (University of Leeds)

Shivaun Quinlivan (NUI Galway)

Anne Revillard (Sciences Po)

Marcia Rioux  (York University)

Katherine Runswick-Cole (University of Sheffield)

Jonas Ruškus (Vytautas Magnus University)

Sara Ryan (University of Oxford)

Lucy Series (Cardiff University)

Roger Slee (University of Leeds)

Karen Soldatic (Western Sydney University)

Sharon Snyder (Independent Scholar)

Damjan Tatić (Independent Scholar)

Rannveig Traustadóttir (University of Iceland)

Filippo Trevisan (American University)

Raquel Velho (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

Lisa Waddington (Maastricht University) 

Michael Waterstone (Loyola Marymount University)

Nick Watson (University of Glasgow)

Felix Welti (University of Kassel)

Gregor Wolbring (University of Calgary)

Wanhong Zhang (Wuhan University)

Co-Chair of Editorial Executive, Angharad Beckett, a.e.beckett@leeds.ac.uk

Publisher Pluto Journals, kush@plutojournals.com

For institutional and online subscriptions, these are available through JSTOR here.

Print subscriptions of the journal are available through Marston Book Services, here.

Constructivism and its risks in artificial intelligence

Gary R Lea

ABSTRACT

The research and development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies involve choices that extend well beyond the search for narrow engineering solutions to problems. The label ‘constructivism’ is used to capture this larger realm of social choice. Drawing on the history of AI, a distinction is made between limited artificial narrow intelligence (ANI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI). Both forms, the paper argues, carry risks. Following this history, the paper outlines how different approaches to rationality have led to different ‘tribes’ of AI. No universal model of rationality is available to AI engineers. Choice is everywhere. The paper then moves to an exploration of the links between AI and chess. It argues that chess, far from being an objective measure of rationality and intelligence, reveals the subjective biases and risks involved in the pursuit of AI. The paper moves on to provides examples of various unstable and potentially dangerous race heats taking place in AI, including those among various AI research groups (public and private), among corporations and among states. The final section draws together the various risks of AI.

A typology of strategies for user involvement in innovation processes

Pia Storvang, Anders Haug and Bang Nguyen

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates how an organization can involve users in innovation processes. Based on three case studies and the literature on spaces, user-driven innovations and design management, the paper develops a framework that organizes different types of user involvement strategies. The framework aims to provide a rich understanding of how innovative spaces can be staged under different management strategies. To test the framework, nine SMEs from different Danish industries were selected. The findings show that the framework needs to be flexible in order to accommodate how users can be involved in different contexts and stages of the process. In addition, the study demonstrates various approaches to innovative spaces for involving users and their interests in the company. The framework includes a critique of the one-sided promotion of certain innovation paradigms in the literature. As demonstrated in this paper, different contexts require very different innovation approaches.

A hand-up or a hand-out? An argument for concierge services for the development of innovation capacity in startups

David Noble, Michael B Charles and Robyn Keast

ABSTRACT

This study suggests that a concierge service, provided by governments, can assist startups to gain streamlined access to the services, capabilities and capital required to bring innovation efficiently and cost-effectively to market. It analyses a range of concierge models in five separate jurisdictions to determine best practice. The paper develops a rationale and working definition for a concierge service that will assist public sector managers to help young high-growth SMEs and startups to navigate the increasingly complex innovation ecosystem.

Pluto Journals