ECREA WEEKLY digest ARTICLES

Baltic Screen Media Review

Deadline: October 15, 2025

Over the past decade, media have quietly become graph-shaped. Newsrooms, streaming platforms, archives, and social networks now depend on webs of entities - people, places, works, events - and the typed relations that connect them. Under labels such as linked data, the semantic web, and knowledge graphs, these infrastructures coordinate how content is produced, described, discovered, licensed, preserved, and increasingly generated by AI. They sit beneath the interfaces we see, but they structure what becomes visible, recommendable, and valuable. Understanding contemporary media therefore requires understanding the graphs that organise them.

The rise of knowledge graphs in media is not an accident of technical fashion; it is the logical outcome of long trajectories in cataloguing, digitisation, and platformisation. Libraries and broadcasters moved from card catalogues to MARC and Dublin Core; heritage institutions spent two decades aligning authority files and opening collections; web companies standardised schema-based markup at scale; collaborative knowledge bases such as Wikidata turned entity curation into a public good; and audiovisual industries confronted the complexity of rights, versions, localisations, and windowing across global markets. In parallel, machine learning made structured, linked metadata indispensable: entity linking, recommendation, search, summarisation, and content moderation all perform better when grounded in persistent identifiers and interoperable ontologies. To all this was added the trust and provenance crises of the synthetic media era, which has led to a renewed emphasis on verifiable origin trails, signatures, and content credentials that are most useful when they are linked. The economics of attention, the politics of authenticity, and the pragmatics of large-scale automation all seem to converge on the need for shared, machine-readable meaning.

These developments demand analysis from multiple angles. From the political economy of media, knowledge graphs can be read as new “coordination layers” that concentrate bargaining power and lock in ecosystems - or, alternatively, as public infrastructures that lower search and verification costs, widen market access, and enable plural discovery. Media industry studies can show how graphs reshape workflows: from pre-production knowledge bases and clearance graphs, to versioning and localisation, to explainable recommendation pipelines in the platform back-end. Media economics can evaluate the intangible asset value of metadata itself, model network effects that arise when catalogues interlink across firms and borders, and assess when openness produces positive externalities and when enclosure yields short-term rents but long-term fragility.

For media semiotics, graphs offer a new instrument to study meaning circulation: intertextuality, world-building, genre drift, and translation across modalities can be traced as patterns of links among works, motifs, and characters. Audience and reception studies can examine how knowledge graph-grounded explanations and provenance labels affect trust and satisfaction, when serendipity expands or narrows horizons, and how fan communities co-produce knowledge that later feeds institutional graphs. Media archaeology could bring historical depth, showing how past documentation practices prefigure today’s ontologies and how reconciliation of “lost” entities can revive suppressed or minoritised histories. Science and Technology Studies could open the black box of standards and maintenance: ontologies are negotiated, versioned, and policed by communities; their categories include and exclude, often reproducing the centre–periphery dynamics of media culture.

For media law and ethics licensing and rights graphs raise questions about privacy and cross-jurisdictional compliance. Provenance frameworks aim to restore trust, yet their governance determines who can certify whom, under what terms, and at what cost. Finally, a public value perspective to media infrastructures asks how these infrastructures can be designed as durable, fair, and pluralistic, especially for small languages and small markets where linked openness may be the difference between invisibility and participation.

This thematic issue takes linked data not as a niche technique but as a constitutive feature of contemporary media. We invite contributions from all the perspectives discussed above to open up the phenomenon and to illuminate the diverse implications that linked data has brought to contemporary media.

Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

• The role of linked data in organizing contemporary media ecosystems.
  
• Governance models for media knowledge infrastructures and their societal impacts.
  
• How linked data adoption reshapes news and platform discovery.
  
• How interoperability standards shape collaboration across media institutions.
  
• Cross-ID interoperability among broadcasters, archives, and streamers.
  
• Economic consequences of open vs. proprietary media metadata.
  
• Linked data, cultural diversity, and the visibility of small languages and regions.
  
• Audience trust and transparency in graph-enabled discovery and curation.
  
• Legal and ethical frameworks for graph-based media production and reuse.
  
• From catalogues to knowledge graphs: historical trajectories and lessons.
  
• Research methods for studying media with graph-based datasets.
  
• Public value and policy approaches to sustaining linked media data.
  
• Fan wikis as co-curators: aligning community and institutional graphs.
  
• Graph-aware recommenders and explainability in public service media.
  
• Mapping intertextuality and transmedia worlds via entity-relation graphs.
  
• Ontology politics: who defines genres, roles, and identities.
  
• Privacy-preserving linkage of audience data with content graphs under GDPR.
  
• Media archaeology of metadata: reconciling legacy catalogues into RDF.
  
• Event knowledge graphs for breaking-news verification.
  
• Authority alignment between knowledge graphs and cross-border memory.
  
• Knowledge graphs as coordinators in media innovation systems.
  
• Ethical risks of automated ontologies: bias, erasure, contested identities.
  
• The use of graphs for AI training.
  
• Media data spaces (e.g., European initiatives): architectures, incentives, and competition effects.
  

Submission Guidelines

We invite scholars, practitioners, and interdisciplinary researchers to contribute original research articles, theoretical essays and industry case studies. Submissions should not exceed 8000 words and must adhere to the journal’s formatting guidelines. All manuscripts will undergo a double-blind peer review process.

- Abstract Submission (400 words) Deadline: October 15th 2025

- Full Paper Submission Deadline: January 23rd 2026

- Publication Date: August 20th 2026

Please submit your abstracts and papers by email to (bsmr/at/tlu.ee). For any inquiries, contact the editorial team at indrek.ibrus/at/tlu.ee.

We look forward to receiving your contributions to this timely discussion.

Issue editor: Indrek Ibrus, Tallinn University

The Baltic Screen Media Review is a free-to-publish open-access peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the analysis of audiovisual media and screen culture, particularly in the Baltic Sea region and its surrounding areas. It seeks to address media transformations within broader European and global contexts, emphasizing both regional specificities and transnational connections. Published by Tallinn University's Baltic Film, Media and Arts School, the journal serves as a forum for interdisciplinary research, offering insights into film, television, new media, and related cultural phenomena. Find out more: https://sciendo.com/journal/bsmr

Edited by: Ashley Riggs, Lucile Davier

Constructive news is an alternative to the negativity of if-it-bleeds-it-leads journalism but still unfamiliar to some audiences and still relatively under-researched, particularly by news translation scholars. And yet, it is “done” across cultures and, therefore, languages. This innovative book contributes to filling that research gap and raising awareness of the phenomenon by showcasing cross-cultural research on constructive news, including in the Global South – a region that has traditionally received less scholarly attention than the Global North.

 Constructive news is resolutely multimodal, and so a number of chapters analyse it from that perspective. The chapters also tackle such topics as audience attitudes, service to the local community, pedagogy, financial news, and religious news. This book will appeal to journalism studies and translation scholars, applied linguists, lecturers, journalists, editors, and members of the public who consume, study, or teach news but are looking for alternatives.

https://www.routledge.com/Constructive-News-Across-Languages-and-Cultures/Riggs-Davier/p/book/9781032849058?srsltid=AfmBOoonvJjJkgamIQsQsfWj-aAl21GLE8VANPlLbYNr_YUot9nGm_J2

Ayça Atabey, Kim R. Sylwander and Sonia Livingstone

Read full report here

Read the press release

This report advances the DFC’s and 5Rights’ research on A better Edtech future for children and builds on our earlier DFC research on EdTech and education data.

“Across all GenAI tools we studied, children’s perspectives were largely excluded from their design, governance and evaluation and all tools undermine children's rights to privacy and protection from commercial exploitation.” (Ayça Atabey)

Executive summary

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly embedded in digital services and products that are used for and in education (EdTech), raising urgent questions about their impact on children’s learning and rights. We take a holistic child rights approach to children’s learning to evaluate five GenAI tools used in education – Character.AI, Grammarly, MagicSchool AI, Microsoft Copilot and Mind’s Eye.

Using mixed sociolegal methods, including product walkthroughs, policy analysis and consultations with children, educators and experts around the world, we evaluate how these digital tools operate, and we assess the claims they make. These assessments are conducted in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General comment No. 25 regarding the digital environment.

Our primary focus is on how these tools uphold key rights under the UNCRC, including children’s rights to education (Article 28), privacy (Article 16), to be heard and have their views respected (Article 12), non-discrimination (Article 2), the principle of the best interests of the child (Article 3.1), the right to appropriate support for children with disabilities (Article 23), access to information (Article 17) and freedom of expression (Article 13).

While each GenAI tool offers the potential to facilitate learning through, for example, supporting creativity, communication and accessibility, each also presents notable risks. These risks arise because of opaque data practices, poor transparency, commercial exploitation through nudges, advertising and tracking, including from age-inappropriate adult website advertisers, all of which are incompatible with children’s best interests. Overall, many claimed benefits remain unverified, and the increasing presence of GenAI and its increasingly ‘by default’ integration reflects institutional or market priorities more than children’s needs and interests.

Across the five tools studied, children’s perspectives were largely excluded from their design, governance and evaluation. The case studies reveal that these tools undermine children’s rights to privacy and protection from commercial exploitation. The tools may support rights such as education, play, expression and access to information, potentially enhancing children’s learning. However, there is limited evidence for these benefits, especially a lack of evidence from diverse groups of children, younger children and those with disabilities.

Key findings from the case studies:

• Although marketed as an educational and supportive tool, Character.AI poses risks to children’s rights and wellbeing due to insufficient safety safeguards (as evidenced by ongoing litigation), misleading or harmful content, and design features that foster unhealthy emotional dependency. While it can offer some creative and motivational benefits (e.g., Article 13), especially in informal learning contexts, the risks it poses, particularly for vulnerable children (such as young children, children suffering from mental health issues and children with disabilities), may amount to violations of children’s rights to information (Article 17), education (Articles 28, 29), health (Article 24), privacy (Article 16), and non-discrimination (Article 2).
  
• While Grammarly can support children’s learning and expression, particularly for language learners and children with additional needs (Article 23), the audit found that Grammarly tracks and processes children’s data in ways that contradict its own privacy commitments. Further, it promotes inaccurate and potentially harmful AI detection tools that risk undermining student–teacher trust and lack child-friendly safeguards or remedies. These practices risk violating children’s rights to privacy (Article 16), protection from commercial exploitation (Article 32), and being treated in their best interests (Article 3).
  
• MagicSchool AI makes strong claims about reducing teacher workload and supporting student learning. However, we identified a number of ways that its design and data practices risk undermining children’s rights. For instance, despite the company’s stated privacy commitments, children are, by default, exposed to commercial tracking (including from adult site advertisers), and chatbots have been found to provide misleading assurances and inappropriate or unsafe responses. This lack of safeguards, reliable emergency support, and rights-based information means that children’s rights to privacy (Article 16), protection from commercial exploitation (Article 32), information (Article 17), and health and safety (Articles 6, 24, and 19) are potentially at risk.
  
• Microsoft Copilot, embedded in Microsoft 365 tools widely used in UK educational settings, is increasingly accessed by children despite originally being intended for adults. While it can support accessibility, expression, and reduce teacher workload, particular risks arise from its design and deployment. A Dutch data protection impact assessment (DPIA) identified significant privacy concerns, including fabricated personal data, opaque filtering, and extensive tracking. Our research revealed that when a child user accessed the service, commercial trackers were activated, including advertising trackers such as Google Ads. Copilot lacks a child rights impact assessment, clear opt-out options, and transparency about hidden filters. These practices can undermine children’s rights to privacy, agency, and protection from exploitation (Articles 16, 32–36), while overreliance risks weakening core skills and trust in education.
  
• Mind’s Eye is a GenAI art expression tool developed to support children and adults with disabilities, using features such as eye tracking technology and predictive text to enable participation in creative tasks. It offers significant potential to enhance children’s freedom of expression (Article 13) and the rights of children with disabilities (Article 23), particularly for those excluded from mainstream GenAI tools. However, biased or inappropriate suggestions risk undermining expression and engagement, while privacy practices raise concerns about opaque data-sharing practices and lack of child-friendly rights mechanisms (Articles 16, 17 and 32). Without child-specific research, transparency and accessible safeguards, the tool risks reinforcing inequalities rather than removing them.
  

We conclude that GenAI can only enhance education if children’s rights are placed at the centre of its design, deployment and governance. A holistic, child rights-based approach should guide decisions about GenAI use in education, ensuring that children’s best interests, participation and full range of rights are prioritised, with particular emphasis on their right to education. The potential benefits of GenAI in EdTech can only be fully achieved when learning is recognised not as an isolated outcome, but as a process supported by interconnected rights. This means mandatory child rights and data protection impact assessments, accessible safeguards, and meaningful participation of children in decision-making. Without these, children’s right to education can be undermined, and GenAI risks deepening inequalities and exploiting children, rather than supporting their learning.

“The pandemic saw a rapid digitalisation of education, but in the five years since no one has stopped to think if this is benefiting children. This is having serious consequences: children are being tracked by erotic websites and chatbots are providing wrong emergency helplines risking lives and creating dependencies that can damage mental health. As the Government presses ahead with spreading AI far and wide, we must have rules in place to protect children and their education. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, parliament has a chance to ensure this happens.” (Colette Collins-Walsh, Head of UK Affairs at 5Rights Foundation)

October 29, 2025

Södertörn University (Stockholm, Sweden)

As part of the upcoming ECREA ARS 2025 mid-term conference, the pre-conference workshop "ChatGPT and Beyond: AI Literacy for Early-Career Scholars" will take place at Södertörn University (Stockholm, Sweden) on the 29th October 2025 from 14:00-17.00 (CET).

This in-person workshop is free and open to all interested participants. Designed for a small group of 15-20 PhD students and early-career scholars from diverse backgrounds, it will offer a space to explore and discuss ethical, professional, and societal dimensions of AI in academia, including concerns and opportunities arising from generative AI technologies.

To register for the workshop follow this link: https://forms.gle/919RHmvypjX3wS1d6 

For further information, contact Nivedita Chatterjee (n.chatterjee@surrey.ac.uk) Paulo Couraceiro (paulo.couraceiro@obercom.pt) or Jan Weis (jan.weis@sh.se) via email.

This workshop is supported by the EDI Grant awarded to the ECREA ARS Section. Please note that participation in the workshop does not require registration for the main conference.

October 30 – 31, 2025

Faculty of journalism and mass communication, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

Deadline (extended): September 30, 2025

THE FACULTY OF JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATION organizes a 6th International Scientific Conference that will be held on the 30th and 31st of October 2025 within the framework of the St. Kliment Ohridski Days on the video conference platform Teams.

The theme is:  The Changing Media: Professional. Regulatory and Ethical Challenges Facing Media and Communications in a Digital Environment

 We most politely invite the specialists in media and communications, as well as those who are involved with the problems of the media and communication environment and culture in their various dimensions and manifestations. We welcome the interdisciplinary approach to the contemporary challenges in the education and practice of journalism and to the communication activities as a whole.

See details following the link https://commed21.com/

Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg 

Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU), Germany, has the following open positions:

11 Doctoral Researchers in the Research Training Group: “The Experience of Stories in the Digital Age (TESDA)” (100% TV-L salary)

The positions will begin on April 1, 2026, and end on September 30, 2029. Each position is full-time. Remuneration will be based on the collective agreement for the public service of the German federal states (Tarifvertrag für den öffentlichen Dienst der Länder, TV-L).

Disciplines Involved: Communication Science, Psychology, Computer Science

The Research Training Group (RTG)

Humans spend a large part of life engaging with stories. Research from recent decades shows that stories have a strong influence on recipients, and scholars have identified experiential states that are characteristic of story engagement (e.g., narrative transportation, presence). Digital technologies and new media landscapes (e.g., artificial intelligence, virtual reality, social media, social robots) have introduced new challenges and opportunities to the field.

The aim of the RTG is to provide an interdisciplinary, collaborative research environment that enables doctoral researchers to conduct both disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies on stories in the digital realm. The challenges and opportunities of experiencing stories in the digital age will be explored across three main project areas:

1. Immersive virtual reality

2. New (para-)social encounters

3. Epistemic challenges

These three areas comprise a total of seven research projects. Two of the research projects focus on children.

Detailed information on the project areas and individual projects is available at https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/grk3087/.

Your responsibilities

• Complete a doctoral thesis in your discipline within 3.5 years

• Actively participate in the joint activities of the RTG

• Contribute to the self-administration and self-organization of the RTG

Your qualifications

• Strong interest in pursuing an academic career

• An above-average master’s degree or equivalent in one of the relevant disciplines (exceptional candidates with a bachelor’s degree may be considered)

• Excellent command of English (all RTG activities will be conducted in English)

• Experience in empirical social science research; specific technical computer science/HCI skills for some positions

Application procedure

Your application should include:

a) A cover letter outlining your motivation to apply

b) A CV

c) A brief statement (maximum 2 pages) specifying which of the seven projects you are applying for and explaining your choice

d) Your BSc/MSc thesis and/or other scientific work

You may apply for one or more projects. Applicants with severe disabilities will be given preferential consideration when equally qualified. Please send your application and supporting documents, preferably by email, to jmu-grk.tesda@uni-wuerzburg.de. Review of applications begins on October 20, 2025, and will continue until the positions are filled.

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences

We are seeking two post-doctoral researchers to conduct ethnographic studies of game production for the ERC grant GAMEINDEX: Politics and aesthetics of indexical representation in digital games and VR. The project is headed by Dr. Jaroslav Švelch and located at Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism, within the Prague Game Production Studies research group. The starting date is in 2026 and the duration of the position is 2 years, with the possibility of extension to 3 years.

The deadline for applications is 30 September 2025.

Project focus:

GAMEINDEX focuses on indexical representation in games – both as traces of real-life objects or people in the simulated worlds of digital games and VR, and as references to physical locations. Besides games themselves, we are interested in analyzing indexical techniques such as motion capture, 3D scanning, voiceover recording, and others. The post-doctoral researchers will primarily contribute to the work package that analyzes the use of indexical techniques within the production practices of video games and/or VR, and explores the transformation of real-life objects and people into in-game assets. The GAMEINDEX project presupposes that material will be collected in game/VR production studios using ethnographic methods (studio ethnographies, participants observation, interviews). Within the scope of the GAMEINDEX project, described here, the applicant is free to come up with their own research project with more specific research questions.

Required qualifications:

• A completed Ph.D. degree or a document from home university confirming that Ph.D. will be awarded by the starting date of contract
  
• Documented experience in social scientific or humanistic research of digital games or other media
  

Recommended qualifications:

• Experience with studio ethnographies or other ethnographic methods of researching game or media production
  
• A Ph.D. from fields such as media studies, film studies, anthropology, or sociology
  
• A solid record of publishing academic research in the English language
  
• Knowledge of contemporary game production and familiarity with indexical techniques (technical experience with them is welcome but not required)
  

Required materials:

• An academic CV and a list of published works
  
• Two references from within academia (include name, title, institution, email address, and phone number); an additional reference from the game industry may be provided if applicable. No letters needed.
  
• A copy of a Ph.D. certificate or an official record of planned/completed defence
  
• Research project – a 2,000 word description of your intended project, which should fit the aims and scope of GAMEINDEX but may reflect the applicant’s personal research interests and previous experience. The project should include: a theoretical background and positioning, research questions, methodology, a list potential case studies, risk analysis, and a rough work plan for the 2 years (Gantt chart not needed).
  
• Two samples of academic writing – ideally from published articles, dissertation, or conference papers
  

Practical arrangements:

The incoming applications will be screened by the GAMEINDEX team and suitable candidates will be invited for an online or in-person interview. Successful applicants are expected to relocate to Prague and are eligible for a relocation fee from the project budget.

Successful applicants will become full-time employees of Charles University, with benefits and a competitive salary commensurable with experience (details provided upon request).

Once employed, the researcher can be granted funding from GAMEINDEX to cover costs of fieldwork and conference travel.

Submissions:

Applicants may submit their applications by September 30, 2025, via e-mail to:

kariera@fsv.cuni.cz, with the subject: “Postdoc ERC GAMEINDEX”. Applicants may approach the PI Jaroslav Švelch at jaroslav.svelch@fsv.cuni.cz to ask questions about GAMEINDEX and the postdoc positions.

By responding to this advertisement, you consent to the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, located at Smetanovo nábřeží 6, Prague 1, Postal Code 110 01, processing your personal data for the purposes of the selection procedure. The processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) and Act No. 110/2019 Coll., on the Processing of Personal Data.

IAMCR

Lead a global network advancing media and communication research. IAMCR, with 3,500+ members in 85 countries, seeks a full-time, remote Executive Director to run a small virtual secretariat, support specialised thematic groups, drive membership growth and funding, and help shape our flagship annual conference. The role suits a highly organised, self-directed leader experienced with professional/academic associations; fundraising skills are an asset. Limited travel (2 trips/year). English required; French/Spanish/Mandarin an asset. Start as early as January 2026. Salary commensurate with experience.

Apply by 17 October 2025 with: CV, cover letter, references (with contact details), and a brief vision statement. Interviews in November.

Full announcement & how to apply: https://iamcr.org/vacancy-ed

November 22, 2025

Online

Deadline: September 30, 2025

Dear colleagues,

From algorithmic cultures to participatory trends, from narrative futures to inclusive innovation – RE: TREND – Culture in Motion is calling for your contribution. 

We want to invite you to submit a communication proposal to the III Trends and Culture Management Colloquium, hosted by ICNOVA/iNOVA Media Lab in collaboration with CEAUL/Trends and Culture Management Lab.

This edition focuses on digital transformations and cultural practices in motion, encouraging critical and creative reflection on the signals of change shaping today’s culture. We particularly welcome submissions from students and early-career researchers. Participation is free of charge.

We invite abstracts (250–300 words) for 10-minute online presentations in Portuguese or English, addressing one or more of the following themes (but not limited to):

• Living Intelligence & Algorithmic Cultures

• Culture in Beta: Labs, Prototypes and Experiments

• Trendspotting, Semiotics and Brand Strategies

• Narrative Futures and Sociocultural Anticipation

• Datafied Culture and Inclusive Innovation

• Fandoms, Microcultures and Participatory Trends

• AI and Trend Research

• Communication, New Media and Trends

Date: Saturday, 22 November 2025

Format: Online

Keynote speaker to be announced soon

Submit your abstract: https://bit.ly/trendscolloquium

Deadline for submissions: 30 September 2025

We look forward to your contribution.

For more details, please visit: https://trendsandculture.fcsh.unl.pt

Best regards,

Ana Marta M. Flores & Organising Committee

April 9-10, 2026

Copenhagen, Denmark

Deadline: December 1, 2025

The research projects Algorithms, Data & Democracy (the ADD-project) and Strategic Communication and Artificial Intelligence (SCAI) are pleased to announce the Controversies of AI society conference to be held at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, on 9-10 April 2026. We invite contributions across disciplines and hope to see you there.

With the accelerated implementation of algorithmic technologies, now broadly referred to as ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI), across all dimensions of society, it is imperative to consider how technological and societal developments shape each other: What social formations do AI systems invite? How do emerging uses of AI inform further developments across public, private, and third sectors? What social changes emerge out of these new technologies, and how are social dynamics embedded within their infrastructures? How do business models and consumption patterns enable some technological developments (and not others), and what relations of production and consumption are pushed by AI technologies? Can legal frameworks and political agendas influence the operations of the tech industry, and what are the alternatives to established actors, organizational forms, and ways of working? Can such alternatives influence technological developments, and how are public perceptions and collective actions informed by the material conditions of technological innovation, from venture capital through computing power to data centers? How, in short, might we understand the current constellation(s) of technocapitalism? 

To inquire into these issues, and the many that follow from them, please join us for an interdisciplinary conference on the controversies of AI society.

As no one perspective can fully capture the complex interplay between technology (in its various forms) and society (in its various forms), we invite participants to address this broad agenda from within, from outside, and from the intersections of relevant disciplines across the social sciences, humanities, and technical sciences. That is, investigations of the relationships and tensions that constitute AI society, such as, but not limited to:

• Civil society and democratic concerns
  
• Corporate strategies and business models
  
• Data, data sciences, and data practices in society
  
• Digital platforms and algorithmic publics
  
• Educational systems and approaches to learning
  
• Environmental sustainability and planetary crisis
  
• Ethics, (in)equality, and sovereignty in AI society
  
• Political imaginaries and forms of governance
  
• Public administration and state-citizen interactions
  
• Technological innovations and industry developments
  

Current trends and tendencies may be many things – consensual, collaborative, contentious, or even contradictory – but no matter how we see them, or what powers support them, they all help us see a little bit further. They may never fully line up, they may be messy, but this messiness is integral to how they exist in the world. For instance, some might argue that regulation stands in the way of innovation or that the interests of industry actors are always already misaligned with those of civil society. Others might claim that the interests of industry and democracy can be aligned only through policy, and that we need regulation to curb the excesses of unfettered competition. Yet others might claim that real technological innovation grows from grassroots communities, which need to be be politically and economically supported. Three competing narratives that contribute to the discussion, playing their part – along with multiple others – in narrating the messy whole of AI society, controversies and all.

In sum, we see the developments of what might be termed ‘AI society’ as by their very nature debatable and suggest such debates benefit from interdisciplinary perspectives. Consequently, we particularly welcome interdisciplinary contributions, but we also invite participants to shed light on ongoing practical and theoretical controversies from within specific disciplines – and from outside them. We wish for the conference to be an inclusive space for lively and robust debate, not only welcoming controversies but celebrating them.

We accept two forms of contributions: abstract-based presentations and full papers. Please, submit your abstract of no more than 500 words OR your paper of maximum 8000 words (including references) by 1 December 2025. We welcome both technical papers and position papers as well as conceptual, empirical, and methodological contributions. Author guidelines will be posted on this website shortly.

All submissions will undergo peer review, and a decision will be communicated by mid-January. Abstracts will be assessed on an accept/reject basis. Authors of full papers will receive reviewer comments, and those who are invited to participate, will be offered the chance of revising their manuscript towards publication in the conference proceedings. The proceedings be published through AAU OPEN.

Important dates:

• 1 November: Submission platform opens
  
• 1 December: Submission deadline (abstracts and papers)
  
• 19 January: Decisions (and reviews of full papers) sent to authors
  
• 9 March: Revised papers (for publication in the conference proceedings) due in camera ready format (guidelines on formatting to follow)
  
• 9-10 April: Conference

Read more here.