Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
DeepMind
Google Research
Stanford HAILudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunich Center for Machine LearningThe Ethics PracticeApr 13, 2026arXiv:2604.11281This paper investigates why ethics interventions in technology development often fail to engage practitioners, proposing "epistemic trust" as a key factor influencing engagement. Through qualitative analysis of 70 moral imagination workshops, the authors identify five dimensions of epistemic trust (Relevance, Inclusivity, Agency, Authority, and Alignment) and a typology of 23 failure modes. They then derive nine design principles for cultivating epistemic trust in ethics interventions, aiming to improve the uptake of responsible innovation initiatives.
Ethics interventions in AI development often fail because practitioners don't trust them – here's a breakdown of why, and how to fix it.
Bottom-up responsible innovation initiatives seek to empower technology development teams to engage in ethical reflection, yet such interventions frequently fail to achieve practitioner engagement. Why do some ethics interventions succeed while others are dismissed as irrelevant, adversarial, or disconnected from work? This paper proposes epistemic trust -- the degree to which practitioners regard an intervention, its facilitators, and its content as credible, relevant, and actionable -- as a conceptual model linking intervention design to engagement outcomes. Drawing on philosophical work on testimony and on practice-based qualitative analysis of over 70 moral imagination workshops with engineering teams between 2019 and 2025, we identify five dimensions of epistemic trust salient to ethics interventions (Relevance, Inclusivity, Agency, Authority, and Alignment) and present a typology of 23 failure modes that arise when these dimensions are inadequately addressed. We derive nine design principles for cultivating epistemic trust, grounded in our operationalisation of moral imagination through technomoral scenarios and structured deliberation. Our findings contribute to the literature on collaborative socio-technical integration by specifying conditions of uptake that existing frameworks leave undertheorised. We acknowledge limitations including selection effects from voluntary participation and the absence of formal outcome measures, and position our failure mode typology as practitioner hypotheses warranting further empirical validation.
