Author: Tammy Mackenzie

  • Aula Convening Guideline 2025 Ed.

    Aula Convening Guideline 2025 Ed.

    The Aula Convening Guidelines, 2025 ed.

    These Aula Convening Guidelines are for people working on tech governance and AI in society, these are 6 guidelines for convening communities for legitimate collective decision-making on how AI is implemented in society.

    Since our founding in 2023, Aula Fellows have hosted and participated in 100s of conversations in more than 30 countries and regions on AI. We have spoken with people who have a variety of needs, spanning through Learning AI, Living with AI, Working with AI, and Shaping AI.

    We have worked through 3 project phases, to develop these guidelines, from the common elements that make for conversations in which communities make decisions about AI. Our goal is not a new type of consultation, but rather to see to it that community convenings are conductive to collective decision making on AI.

    In 2026 we will be reaching out to partner organizations to continue to refine these guidelines and to bring them to more groups of people.

    They are complete and available now under a Creative Commons license, in this V.01, 2025 Edition.

    Link to the PDF.

  • Call for Book Chapters: OUR AI PROBLEMS

    Call for Book Chapters: OUR AI PROBLEMS

    Call for Book Chapters: Our AI Problems (Edited Volume)

    We believe that there are no easy answers when it comes to artificial intelligence and society. Across jurisdictions and decision-making bodies, those who develop or enforce regulations are confronted with difficult questions. These challenges arise for many reasons: the issues are often embedded in complex sociotechnical systems, lack straightforward solutions, or involve tensions between competing values and needs.

    The editors hold that AI can be of great service for humanity. At the same time, current regulatory frameworks lag far behind what is needed to ensure just, safe, and equitable access and outcomes. 

    Policymakers and subject-matter specialists are increasingly converging on a shared set of especially challenging issues.  Society is learning to join in the conversations. Accordingly, the proposed volume is envisioned as addressing the following areas: Economics and Power; Democracy and Trust; Risks Large and Small; Building Bridges and Inclusion; Media and Art; Environment and Health; Justice, Security, and Defense.

    If you are interested in contributing, we would be delighted to hear from you. If you know colleagues or collaborators who might wish to participate, please feel free to share this call with them as well.

    Deadline for chapter abstracts (250–300 words): 15 January 2026
    Deadline for chapter draft submission (8000–10,000 words; US English; APA style): 31 March 2026
    Deadline for final revisions: 15 May 2026

    Edited by Tammy Mackenzie, Ashley Elizabeth Muller, and Branislav Radeljić

    For more info about the editors, please see: Fellows
    Submissions and questions: Contact Branislav Radeljić, Ph.D., Director of Research.

  • Levers of Power in the Field of AI

    Levers of Power in the Field of AI

    Forthcoming study, now available on Arxiv:

    Levers of Power in the Field of AI
    An Ethnography of Personal Influence in Institutionalization

    Who holds power over decisions in our society? How do these people influence decisions, and how are these people influenced? How is this the same or different when it comes to questions about AI?  These are some of the questions we set out to understand.

    Abstract: This paper examines how decision makers in academia, government, business, and civil society navigate questions of power in implementations of artificial intelligence (AI). The study explores how individuals experience and exercise “levers of power”, which are presented as social mechanisms that shape institutional responses to technological change. The study reports on the responses of personalised questionnaires designed to gather insight on a decision maker’s institutional purview, based on an institutional governance framework developed from the work of Neo Institutionalists. Findings present the anonymized, real responses and circumstances of respondents in the form of twelve fictional personas of high-level decision makers from North America and Europe. These personas illustrate how personal agency, organizational logics, and institutional infrastructures may intersect in the governance of AI. The decision makers’ responses to the questionnaires then inform a discussion of the field level personal power of decision-makers, methods of fostering institutional stability in times of change, and methods of influencing institutional change in the field of AI. The final section of the discussion presents a table of the dynamics of the levers of power in the field of AI for change makers and 5 testable hypotheses for institutional and social movement researchers. In summary, this study provides insight on the means for policymakers within institutions and their counterparts in civil society to personally engage with AI governance.

    Read  on Arxiv.

  • ISED Canada Consultation to Define the Next Chapter of Canada’s AI leadership

    ISED Canada Consultation to Define the Next Chapter of Canada’s AI leadership

    Aula Fellows contributed to the recent consultation on the government of Canada’s AI Strategy. Our principle recommendations are that the government needs to empower civil society inclusion in decision making and support small businesses. These will ensure not just social acceptability, but also fiscal and technical fit-to-purpose.

    Read the full consultation document here.

  • Book review of Human Power: Seven Traits for the Politics of the AI Machine Age

    Book review of Human Power: Seven Traits for the Politics of the AI Machine Age

    Book review of Human Power:
    Seven Traits for the Politics of the AI Machine Age

    I am a practitioner in the field of AI policymaking, as a civil society advocate and a researcher. I was excited to read Ms. Gry Hasselbalch because she has a very good reputation for telling people the truth and for not backing down on values-based work. I’ve had the opportunity to hear her present in the past.

    This was exactly the read I hoped for and more. She describes our “human powers” like unpacking a really great care package, full of everything you love but forgot you were missing. And in details. In quotable, academic details, heading off through history and into the conversations between people about how AI policy needs become enacted. I love it. It’s the next best thing to being in the room.

    The best part for me as a social systems geek is that she’s been in this work, she ties each of our human powers to policy power as you read, so it builds you up. And she brings it all together in the final chapter. Direct conversations with the people making the decisions, about the challenges they face. For me this type of thinking underpins what we’re doing with the Aula Fellowship, about connecting people to these conversations. She also gives me personally a lot of analogies and examples to help make the conversations we’re having around hard questions gain some clarity. So I am not a habitual book reviewer, but count me in as a book recommender. I liked this, a lot, and it’s already being useful to how I think and talk about tech policy.  It’s a reminder that we as people have choices in how this is going to affect the future. And it’s a cheerful reminder that we humans get to keep all the good stuff, like loving each other and creating society.

    Thank you for your work, Ms. Hasselbalch.

  • Tech Tool: the Survivor’s Dashboard

    Tech Tool: the Survivor’s Dashboard

    A dashboard of curated information for survivor’s of modern slavery and the people who work to rescue others. This tool is available for collaborations. Please contact our Technical Director, François Pelletier, for more information.

  • Dataset: Professional Development Badges (Aula Fellowship)

    Dataset: Professional Development Badges (Aula Fellowship)

    This dataset is available for collaborations. Please contact our research Director, Dr. Branislav Radeljic, Ph.D., for more information.

    More Information

  • Developing the Permanent Symposium on AI (poster): Presented at Engineering and Public Policy Division (EPP) Poster Session

    Developing the Permanent Symposium on AI (poster): Presented at Engineering and Public Policy Division (EPP) Poster Session

    A multidisciplinary, reflective autoethnography by some of the people who are building the Permanent Symposium on AI. Includes the history of the project.

    RQ 1: Challenges that unite AI policy & tech

    RQ 2: How to design the PSAI?

    RQ 3: What factors influence the adoption and scalability of the PSAI?

    This is the Flagship project of the Aula Fellowship.

    Read the Poster

  • Work in Progress: Exclusive Rhetoric in AI Conference Mission Statements

    Work in Progress: Exclusive Rhetoric in AI Conference Mission Statements

    AI conferences are pivotal spaces for knowledge exchange, collaboration, and shaping the trajectory of research, practice, and education. This paper presents preliminary findings from an analysis of AI conference mission statements, investigating how their stated goals affect who is welcomed into AI conversations. We find that many mission statements reflect assumptions that may unintentionally narrow participation and reinforce disciplinary and institutional silos. This limits engagement from a broad range of contributors—including educators, students, working professionals, and even younger users —who are essential to a thriving AI ecosystem. We advocate for clearer framing that supports democratizing and demystifying AI. By broadening participation and intentionally fostering cross-sector and interdisciplinary connections, AI conferences can help unlock more innovation.

    More Information

  • Canary in the Mine: An LLM Augmented Survey of Disciplinary Complaints to the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ) (Peer Reviewed)

    Canary in the Mine: An LLM Augmented Survey of Disciplinary Complaints to the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ) (Peer Reviewed)

    This study investigates disciplinary incidents involving engineers in Quebec, shedding light on critical gaps in engineering education. Through a comprehensive review of the disciplinary register of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ)’s disciplinary register for 2010 to 2024, researchers from engineering education and human resources management in technological development laboratories conducted a thematic analysis of reported incidents to identify patterns, trends, and areas for improvement. The analysis aims to uncover the most common types of disciplinary incidents, underlying causes, and implications for the field in how engineering education addresses (or fails to address) these issues. Our findings identify recurring themes, analyze root causes, and offer recommendations for engineering educators and students to mitigate similar incidents. This research has implications for informing curriculum development, professional development, and performance evaluation, ultimately fostering a culture of professionalism and ethical responsibility in engineering. By providing empirical evidence of disciplinary incidents and their causes, this study contributes to evidence-based practices for engineering education and professional development, enhancing the engineering education community’s understanding of professionalism and ethics.

    More Information

  • What We Do Not Know: GPT Use in Business and Management

    What We Do Not Know: GPT Use in Business and Management

    This systematic review examines peer-reviewed studies on application of GPT in business management, revealing significant knowledge gaps. Despite identifying interesting research directions such as best practices, benchmarking, performance comparisons, social impacts, our analysis yields only 42 relevant studies for the 22 months since its release. There are so few studies looking at a particular sector or subfield that management researchers, business consultants, policymakers, and journalists do not yet have enough information to make well-founded statements on how GPT is being used in businesses. The primary contribution of this paper is a call to action for further research. We provide a description of current research and identify knowledge gaps on the use of GPT in business. We cover the management subfields of finance, marketing, human resources, strategy, operations, production, and analytics, excluding retail and sales. We discuss gaps in knowledge of GPT potential consequences on employment, productivity, environmental costs, oppression, and small businesses. We propose how management consultants and the media can help fill those gaps. We call for practical work on business control systems as they relate to existing and foreseeable AI-related business challenges. This work may be of interest to managers, to management researchers, and to people working on AI in society.

    More Information

  • Easy to read, easier to write: the politics of AI in consultancy trade research

    Easy to read, easier to write: the politics of AI in consultancy trade research

    AI systems have been rapidly implemented in all sectors, of all sizes and in every country. In this article, we conduct a bibliometric review of references in recent consultancy reports on AI use in business, policymaking, and strategic management. The uptake of these reports is high. We find three positive factors: focus on client-facing solutions, speed of production, and ease of access. We find that the evidentiary quality of reports is often unsatisfactory because of references-clubbing with other consultancy reports, references to surveys without transparency, or poor or missing references. To optimize the utility of consultancy reports for decision-makers and their pertinence for policy, we present recommendations for the quality assessment of consultancy reporting on AI’s use in organizations. We discuss how to improve general knowledge of AI use in business and policymaking, through effective collaborations between consultants and management scientists. In addition to being of interest to managers and consultants, this work may also be of interest to media, political scientists, and business-school communities.

    More Information