Panel #DarkSidesOfDH : To some extent problems like lack of diversity are problems of "unknown unknowns".
I wonder how much effort it would require to establish habits of (a) reaching out to representatives of who we assume to be affected by our policies (or figuring out who that would be in the first place) and (b) have an open call for external stakeholder statements (where would we place such calls)? Whenever we at least realize that we are dealing with our community's policies.
E.g., which review procedures do we rely on, what expectations with regard to making research data accessible do we entertain, what we consider good practice in using compute resources and BigTech offerings...
for instance, regarding the gradually forming AI usage practices/habits, and seeing this piece in the news, I think we could only benefit from touching base with unions of various kinds. See if we have something to offer that they are interested in (teaching, models, ways of criticizing AI), what direction they would like us to go into, what they would like us to investigate and reasearch, and what to argue for or substantiate with scholarly findings and experiences.
https://infosec.exchange/@Cyberoutsider/116141377375695709.
And in the end, it is also us - at least with our RSE hats on, but maybe it even holds for the organisation of academic research as a whole - and our working conditions, tasks and pressures, who are talked about and disposed of in these developments who may be urged to become "reverse centaurs"...