Mapping the Responsible AI Profession, A Field in Formation (techUK)

---

1. What Happened / Overview

On April 8, 2025, techUK, the tech trade association of the UK, released our paper titled Mapping the Responsible AI Profession, A Field in Formation. Our digital ethics working group, whose ~40 members range from data specialists to chief ethics officers at one of our 1,100 membership companies, brought this piece to life. 

The paper examined Responsible AI practitioners, highlighting their emergence as essential human infrastructure to operationalise ethical principles and regulatory requirements. These professionals ensure AI systems are developed and deployed ethically, safely, and fairly across the UK economy. 

Our conversational, mixed-methods approach was chosen intentionally to capture both the formal frameworks emerging in the field and the practical, day-to-day experiences of practitioners implementing ethical principles. We were focused on drawing our research from direct engagement with practitioners to ensure that the paper was both by and for them.

2. Why It Matters 

The rapid mainstreaming of AI has created a fundamental shift in how organisations approach AI governance and ethics. What was once primarily a theoretical discourse or auxiliary function has evolved into an urgent operational imperative, often seen on the board agenda, with organisations scrambling to establish robust frameworks for responsible AI (RAI) implementation. At the heart of this transformation lies a pressing question: who, precisely, is responsible for responsible AI? 

The UK government’s current aim is to foster increased AI adoption and diffusion across the economy. Key to achieving this will be cultivating greater trust and confidence in AI systems and credibility in the professionals who safeguard them. This is why the role of the RAI practioners is crucial and the need to support the development of this profession is vital. However, we currently lack clear pathways for individuals to enter the responsible AI profession, creating uncertainty for hiring managers and impeding the development of a robust assurance ecosystem and supportive skills programmes as recommended in the recently published AI Opportunities Action Plan. 

Our paper reveals that this professional field is at a critical juncture—shifting from an emergent discipline into an essential organisational function yet still defining its formal structure and boundaries. 

We see three critical gaps currently undermining the effectiveness of responsible AI practitioners and threatening the UK’s AI leadership ambitions: 

1. The absence of clear role definitions and organisational placement 
2. The lack of structured career pathways 
3. Underdeveloped standardised skills and training frameworks 

Just as privacy experts became indispensable during the internet’s expansion, responsible AI ethics practitioners are now becoming essential for our AI future.

3. Between the Lines 

The career pathways leading to RAI practice (e.g. chief ethics officers, heads of AI ethics and responsible AI leads within organisations) are remarkably diverse, reflecting the field’s multidisciplinary nature. 

Current RAI practitioners come from varied backgrounds including philosophy, compliance, computer science, law, the social sciences and business management. This diversity brings rich perspectives to RAI implementation and should be viewed as a strength. However, some have compared the current state of RAI practice to privacy practice 20 years ago, when defined career paths had not yet emerged. As the profession matures, more standardised educational and career pathways will develop, even though maintaining diversity in professional backgrounds will remain valuable. 

The business implications of addressing these professional development challenges are substantial. Without structured professionalisation, organisations may face inconsistent implementation of ethical AI principles, the erosion of stakeholder trust and potential regulatory complications that could hinder innovation and competitive advantage. The absence of professional standards leaves companies vulnerable to reputational damage and creates barriers to international collaboration and commerce in AI systems. 

This need for practical wisdom has fostered vibrant communities of practice, both online and offline, where current RAI practitioners actively share insights, resources and support. These range from informal peer networks (such as All Tech is Human, Montreal AI Ethics Institute, and Responsible AI UK) to established associations like the International Association of International Privacy Professionals, the Association of AI Ethicists and the International Association of Safe and Ethical AI, creating a collaborative ecosystem where practitioners at all levels can learn from others’ experiences and challenges. Alongside leading consortiums and global communities such as AI Verify Foundation’s Project Moonshot, Partnership on AI, and The AIQI Consortium. These communities function as ‘professional incubators’ creating a collaborative ecosystem where practitioners at all levels can learn from others’ experiences and challenges (Page 27). In addition to communities of practice, we provided a mapping of current educational opportunities in the form of both postgraduate and short online courses that are working to provide suitable training for a RAI talent pipeline (Pages 23-27).

4. Moving forward

To address these critical gaps and strengthen the responsible AI profession, we recommend targeted interventions across three key stakeholder groups (Pages 36-37).

1. Priority Actions for Organisations:

Establish RAI roles with clear mandates and sufficient authority to influence AI development proactively. Invest equally in technical capabilities and governance skills when developing AI talent. Ensure that RAI practitioners have direct reporting lines to senior leadership. The following priorities represent the most urgent actions needed to strengthen this crucial professional community. 

2. Priority Actions for Professional Bodies:

Develop flexible certification frameworks that recognise multiple pathways to expertise. Centre current practitioners in professionalisation discussions to build upon existing best practices. Create accessible professional development opportunities that maintain diversity while establishing standards. Define clear boundaries between the ethical, auditorial and compliance functions of RAI practice. Ensure that emerging certification frameworks accommodate a wide range of entry routes and validate both formal and experiential learning, especially in ethics, social impact, and interdisciplinary practice. 

3. Priority Actions for Policymakers:

Recognise RAI practitioners as essential human infrastructure for effective AI governance, adoption across the economy and development of the assurance ecosystem. Support industry collaboration through networks like techUK to address common challenges. Invest in educational pathways and talent pipelines that develop both technical and ethical competencies. Monitor the profession’s evolution to identify areas requiring additional support.