A university-wide Deliberative Democracy process enabled higher education stakeholders to integrate situated knowledge through structured dialogue to co-produce AAI-EdTech ethical principles¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students, educators and leaders perceived the DD process as a unique, structured and supportive process for co-producing ethical principles. → Teresa Swist 2024 q2 i? The process supported an interactive information exchange in which participants generated new knowledge for the principles. → Teresa Swist 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Teresa Swist 2024¶

Teresa Swist, Simon Buckingham Shum, Kalervo N. Gulson. (2024). Co-producing AIED Ethics Under Lockdown: an Empirical Study of Deliberative Democracy in Action. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 34:670–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00380-z

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Qualitative interview study of the UTS DD consultation: 13 stakeholders (students n=5, educators n=4, leaders n=4) interviewed after the process. Theme 1 reports a "structured and contextual process built upon a culture of trust" scaffolding elicitation of stakeholder opinions.

"This project's particular application of DD offered students, educators, and leaders a structured and contextual process built upon a culture of trust that scaffolded the conscious/careful elicitation of different stakeholder opinions and experiences."

Teresa Swist 2024 (2)¶

Teresa Swist, Simon Buckingham Shum, Kalervo N. Gulson. (2024). Co-producing AIED Ethics Under Lockdown: an Empirical Study of Deliberative Democracy in Action. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 34:670–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00380-z

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Theme 2 of the same interview study reports an "interactive information exchange" empowering participants to generate new knowledge; students and educators reported learning from experts and from diverse stakeholder perspectives.

"This DD project involved students, educators, and leaders in an interactive information exchange which relied upon contextually testing what is reasonable by empowering participants to transgress preconceived notions and generate new knowledge."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Stakeholders viewed the co-produced principles as distinct across organisational, sectoral and policy levels — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The DD process and product cultivated commitment and trust among participants and informed a new university AI governance policy — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The authors argue deliberative democracy theory needs elaboration to reflect real-life politics — related
• AI ethics principles alone do not enforce regulation, per the article's review of implementation evidence — related
• Mutual understanding on the euro prevailed among participants in the Danish Deliberative Poll — related
• Deliberation in the Danish Deliberative Poll produced considerable opinion change, increased knowledge and improved ability to form reasoned opinions among participants — related