The application of socio-technical 'dark side' and AI governance frameworks to CIS digital states

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the inline gaps and future work and stated research gap of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 3 journals.

Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps

• Unveiling the Intellectual Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Islamic Capital Markets: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Literature Review (2026) · AL-KHIYAR Jurnal Bidang Muamalah dan Ekonomi Islam · doi

  Future studies should focus on developing holistic AI governance architectures that are scalable, transparent, and globally interoperable. In addition, future research should focus on explainable AI (XAI), macro- systemic and network-based analysis, and the application of AI in Islamic social finance, ESG, and sustainability. The literature remains constrained by a dominance of method-driven approaches lacking theoretical integration, limited development of explainable and Shariah-compliant AI systems, insufficient macro- systemic analysis, underexplored applications in social finance and sustainability, fragmented governance frameworks, and a lack of empirical, longitudinal, and globally representative studies.

  generalinline gaps
  Keywords: future focus governance globally explainable macro systemic social finance sustainability developing holistic architectures scalable transparent
• DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND GOVTECH: INSIGHTS FROM ARIMA MODELLING AND FORECAST ANALYSIS (2026) · Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi · doi

  The literature is still fragmented; empirical studies are often limited to the national level, and comparative and multi-actor analyses are needed (Liva et al. (2020). Studies on AI, algorithmic governance and ethics are insufficient. “AI-first governance” needs to be theorized (Balaji, 2025). Emerging trends—such as AI integration, blockchain expansion, and open data initiatives—signal GovTech’s evolving role (OECD, 2023). Policymakers must prioritize digital inclusion, robust security frameworks, and change management to maximize benefits. For Turkey, addressing regional disparities and scaling smart city initiatives could amplify impact (World Bank, 2022). This study offers some solid insights, but there are still plenty of research paths to explore: Bringing in External Factors: The models don’t take into account outside influences like political stability, public investment in AI, or changes in cybersecurity policies. By incorporating these elements into extended time-series models (like ARIMAX) could enhance understanding of causality and make findings more relevant for policymakers. Blending Methods with Qualitative Case Studies: It’s important to pair quantitative findings with qualitative insights, such as surveys on citizen satisfaction, evaluations of administrative capacity, or analyses of leadership. This is particularly vital for grasping situations where EGDI scores are high, yet the actual delivery of digital services falls short. Sensitivity to Disruptions Post-2024: Future studies should look into simulations that involve external shocks, like data breaches, incidents of algorithmic bias, or significant governance reforms. This would help us evaluate how resilient digital systems and GovTech strategies are over time. Exploring these avenues would not only tackle the limitations of this study but also enhance the theoretical and practical frameworks that will guide the next stage of global digital transformation. 15 REFERENCES Balaji, K. (2025). E-Government and E-Governance: Driving Digital Transformation in Public Administration. Public Governance Practices in the Age of AI, 23-44. https://doi. org/10.4018/979-8-3693-9286-7.ch002. Bates, J. (2012). This is what modern deregulation looks like: Co-optation and contestation in the shaping of the UK’s Open Government Data Initiative. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2), 1–20. Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x. Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT in public sector reform. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.002. Drèze, J., & Khera, R. (2017, August 10). The Aadhaar debate. The Indian Express. Retrieved from https://indian

  generalfuture work
  Keywords: governance digital government like public https still analyses algorithmic balaji open initiatives govtech role policymakers
• Potential negative effects of artificial intelligence in Kazakhstan’s public sector: an analysis of hidden risks (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi

  The study identifies a research gap in the application of socio-technical 'dark side' and AI governance frameworks to CIS digital states. The study notes that the CIS and Kazakhstan-focused literature is analytically segmented and does not reconstruct how design-level choices in AI legislation, integrated data infrastructures, and public-sector platforms jointly institutionalize risks ex ante.

  generalstated research gapevidence 5/5
  Keywords: study identifies research gap application socio-technical dark side

Questions about this gap