IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021 - 11

international organizations such as not for profits),
niche companies like Google's Jigsaw have emerged
and publicized missions centered around exploring
" threats to open societies, " " upholding technology as
a force for good, " tackling major human rights issues
such as disinformation, censorship, toxicity, violent
extremism, and more [13]. Ironically, these public
claims from companies like Jigsaw that they serve
in the public interest have drawn the media and the
public's attention, raised critical questions about
what constitutes public benefit, the link between
technology and power, the significance of geopolitical
infrastructure, and software/application and data
ownership [14]. As a result, the debate on the role of
the public and what constitutes public benefit concerning
technologies now takes center stage.
Understanding the rightful place of science and
technology is imperative through the creation of new
tools of engagement that are more participative and
inclusive in practice, incorporating persons of diverse
representation [15]. This participatory science policy
paradigm was championed by Daniel Sarewitz, the
highly regarded and recently retired Co-Director of the
Consortium of Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO),
a top-ranked science policy think-tank at ASU [16]. As
noted in the philosophy behind CSPO, " today's societies
are high-tech, and technology increasingly weaves
throughout our lives ... [our] research seeks to understand
what it means for social relationships, values,
identities, and organizations to inhabit advanced technological
societies, how societies arrange themselves
around large, complex technological systems, and
the ways that human lives and livelihoods come to be
defined by and in these systems. "
The ultimate aim of any co-design engagement
is to bring together diverse stakeholders with
potentially competing and or divergent needs and
interests to encourage the collective and creative
design of solutions to contemporary problems and
allow for a sense of ownership. It is to synthesize the
lived experience and expertise of the individuals
in a respective local community with professional
(technical, regulatory, other) expertise to advance
toward the sustainability and flourishing of that
community [17], [18]. We maintain that technology,
in its broadest sense, is not just restricted to a
tangible artifact, but often embraces the end-to-end
socio-technical processes or systems/ecosystems
that may offer incremental to radical improvements
to existing operations. With respect to the co-design
September 2021
of such socio-technical processes and systems, the
co-designer(s) maintain(s) an active role and continue(s)
to be engaged until the respective community
is empowered to a state of self-sufficiency [19].
Co-design engages end-users and other relevant
stakeholders in the creative process of design [20].
As such, according to Michael et al. [21], the aim of
this design approach " should be human-centered value-sensitive
socio-technical systems, offered in response
to local community-based challenges that are designed,
through participatory and co-design processes, for reliability,
safety, and trustworthiness. " In other words,
designing PIT ought to happen " with " stakeholders and
not " for " them. This participatory engagement must also
include integration and socialization practices that are
often bottom-up. Per Sargent et al. [22], such socio-technical
systems " can work if they are embraced by locals,
and harnessed for good by local companies, NGOs,
elders, and other stakeholders. "
Building on these notions, the co-design approach
we advocate for here is not overbearing, knows its
bounds, will provide expertise when required, but
will also embrace the lived experience and expertise
of community members and representatives, while
concurrently attempting to integrate and reconcile
other operational and nonoperational stakeholder
interests, such as regulatory. The objective here is to
co-design the future with PIT and with local communities.
The IEEE International Symposium on Technology
and Society 2020 (IEEE ISTAS 20) provided a
forum for discussing this theme, and select perspectives
are offered in this special issue.
Note about IEEE ISTAS20 and this
special issue
The articles in this special issue have been invited
as a result of their presentation, in part or in full, at
IEEE ISTAS20 that was held on November 12-15,
2020, hosted virtually by the School for the Future of
Innovation in Society (SFIS) at Arizona State University.
The General Chair of the Symposium was Katina
Michael, the Technical Program Chair was Roba
Abbas, the Local Organizing Co-Chairs were Netra
Chhetri and Nalini Chhetri, and our Publications
Chair was Salah Hamdoun. We are also fortunate to
have written this editorial with Jumana Abu-Ghazaleh,
President of Pivot for Humanity and our only
female pioneer presenter at the Conference. The
program ran across four time zones and spanned
some 16 hours a day for four consecutive days.
11
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021
