Who Will Watch the Watchmen? The Ethico-political Arrangements of Algorithmic Proctoring for Academic Integrity

被引:1
作者
Henry J.V. [1 ]
Oliver M. [1 ]
机构
[1] University College London, London
关键词
Algorithms; Artificial intelligence; Care; Ethics; Higher education; Online proctoring;
D O I
10.1007/s42438-021-00273-1
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Critics of artificial intelligence have suggested that the principles of fairness, accountability and transparency (FATE) have been used for ‘ethics washing’, in order to appease industrial interests. In this article, we develop this relational and context-dependent analysis, arguing that ethics should not be understood as abstract values or design decisions, but as socio-technical achievements, enacted in the practices of students, teachers and corporations. We propose that the ethics of using AI in education are political, involving the distribution of power, privilege and resources. To illustrate this, we trace the controversies that followed from an incident in which a student was misclassified as a cheat by an online proctoring platform during the Covid-19 lockdown, analysing this incident to reveal the socio-technical arrangements of academic integrity. We then show how Joan Tronto’s work on the ethics of care can help think about the politics of these socio-technical arrangements — that is, about historically constituted power relations and the delegation of responsibilities within these institutions. The paper concludes by setting the immediate need for restorative justice against the slower temporality of systemic failure, and inviting speculation that could create new relationships between universities, students, businesses, algorithms and the idea of academic integrity. © 2021, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码:330 / 353
页数:23
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Bakhtin M., The dialogic imagination: Four essays, (1981)
[2]  
Barad K., Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 3, pp. 801-831, (2003)
[3]  
Bazerman C., Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts, What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices, pp. 83-96, (2003)
[4]  
Ethical guidelines for educational research, London: British Educational Research Association., (2018)
[5]  
Bharti N., Engaging critically with algorithms: Conceptual and performative interventions, Science, Technology & Human Values, (2021)
[6]  
Bourrier M., Nova N., (En)quêtes de pannes, Techniques Culture, 72, 2, pp. 12-29, (2019)
[7]  
Christin A., The ethnographer and the algorithm: Beyond the black box, Theory & Society, 49, pp. 897-918, (2020)
[8]  
Coghlan S., Miller T., Paterson J., Good proctor or “big brother”? Ethics of online exam supervision technologies, Philosophy & Technology, (2021)
[9]  
Cone L., Brogger K., Berghmans M., Decuypere M., Forschler A., Grimaldi E., Hartong S., Hillman T., Ideland M., Landri P., van de Oudeweetering K., Player-Koro C., Bergviken Rensfeldt A., Ronnberg L., Taglietti D., Vanermen L., Pandemic acceleration: COVID-19 and the emergency digitalization of European education, European Educational Research Journal, (2021)
[10]  
Davies H.C., Eynon R., Salveson C., The mobilisation of AI in education: A Bourdieusean field analysis, Sociology, 55, 3, pp. 539-560, (2021)