Stakeholders viewed the co-produced principles as distinct across organisational, sectoral and policy levels¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Leaders perceived the co-produced principles as distinct at organisational, sectoral and policy levels, including words atypical of governing documents such as dignity. → Teresa Swist 2024

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 · r?

Theme 2 interview findings: leaders judged the principles distinctive because, as one put it, "it was the University looking at its own practice" rather than telling others what to do; educators noted atypical governing-document words such as dignity.

"The leaders viewed the principles as distinct across organisational, sectoral, and policy levels. The principles were seen as being a leading-edge, practice-based approach unique to the university."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A university-wide Deliberative Democracy process enabled higher education stakeholders to integrate situated knowledge through structured dialogue to co-produce AAI-EdTech ethical principles — a broader claim this one bears on
• The DD process and product cultivated commitment and trust among participants and informed a new university AI governance policy — related
• Leaders at city, central office, and school levels are perceived to play a key role in promoting cross-sector collaboration — related